Russia – Page 9 – immigrationcourtside.com

WASHPOST: ANY WAY YOU SAW IT, THIS DUDE’S A HACK – Trumpism Continues To Demean & Destroy Our Most Precious Democratic Institutions!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-is-no-way-this-man-should-be-running-the-justice-department/2018/11/09/f4a2ee60-e45e-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html

The Post Editorial Board writes:

IS MATTHEW G. WHITAKER the legitimate acting attorney general? From approximately the second President Trump ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and tapped Mr. Whitaker to temporarily exercise the office’s vast authority, legal experts have sparred over whether Mr. Trump can unilaterally elevate someone from a role that does not require Senate confirmation to one that does. But regardless of whether the promotion is legal, it is very clear that it is unwise. Mr. Whitaker is unfit for the job.

Several prominent legal scholars point out that the Constitution demands that “principal officers” of the United States must undergo Senate confirmation. A 19th-century Supreme Court case suggeststhere may be limited room for temporary fill-ins, but Mr. Whitaker’s appointment is hardly so temporary; he could serve for most of the rest of Mr. Trump’s first term. Even if Mr. Whitaker’s promotion is constitutional, Congress passed a law governing Justice Department succession that also seems to prohibit Mr. Whitaker’s ascent. The department has a capable, Senate-confirmed deputy attorney general in Rod J. Rosenstein; he should be running the department in the absence of a permanent replacement.

The Senate above all should be offended by the president’s end run around its authority. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should demand hearings and consider filing a lawsuit. Instead, he is helping to establish a troubling precedent, saying only that he expects Mr. Whitaker to be a “very interim AG.” Yet no random official should be endowed with all the powers of an office as powerful as attorney general, meant for a Senate-vetted individual, even for a relatively short time.

And Mr. Whitaker is worse than random. It took less than 24 hours for material to emerge suggesting he could not survive even a rudimentary vetting.

First, there are Mr. Whitaker’s statements criticizing the Russia probe of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. At the least, they require him to consult Justice Department ethics counsel about whether he can oversee the inquiry with a plausible appearance of evenhandedness. He will do immediate and lasting harm to the Justice Department’s reputation, and to the nation, if he assumes the role of president’s personal henchman and impedes the Mueller probe.

Then there is Mr. Whitaker’s connection to a defunct patent promotion company the Federal Trade Commission called “an invention-promotion scam that has bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars.” Mr. Whitaker served on its board and once threatened a complaining customer, lending the weight of his former position as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa to the company’s scheme.

Finally, and fundamentally most damning, is Mr. Whitaker’s expressed hostility to Marbury v. Madison, a central case — thecentral case — in the American constitutional system. It established an indispensable principle: The courts decide what is and is not constitutional. Without Marbury, there would be no effective judicial check on the political branches, no matter how egregious their actions.

If the Senate were consulted, it is impossible to imagine Mr. Whitaker getting close to the attorney general’s office. He should not be there now.

****************************************

There’s no doubt whatsoever that Whitaker is spectacularly unqualified for the job. But so was Sessions. And so were Pruitt and Price. And, so are Carson, DeVos, Nielsen, Zinke, and a host of Senate-confirmed underlings like L. Francis Cissna at USCIS.

Sadly, the point is that the GOP Senate lacks the integrity, backbone, and decency to perform their “advise and consent” function in a credible manner. So, I think the Post might be unduly optimistic in assuming that the GOP-controlled Senate would reject Whitaker merely because he is totally unqualified. Doesn’t seem to have bothered them before; no reason to believe that it will in the future. That’s one reason why our nation is “on the rocks.”

PWS

11-09-18

STORM RISING: WSJ Says NY Prosecutors Have Evidence Implicating Trump In Daniels & McDougal Payoffs That Violate Campaign Finance Laws!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-wsj-payments-stormy-daniels-karen-mcdougal_us_5be5d3a4e4b0769d24cce81c

Sebastian Murdock @ HuffPost reports:

President Donald Trump played a key role in silencing porn star Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal, who both claimed to have had affairs with the president.

Media executive David Pecker met with Trump multiple times to discuss using the National Enquirer tabloid to buy the silence of women he allegedly slept with, according to a new report from The Wall Street Journal. The publication said it spoke to three dozen people with direct knowledge of the payments.

The U.S. Attorneys Office in Manhattan now has evidence of Trump’s role in the hush payments, according to the WSJ. He previously denied having knowledge about the payments.

In October 2016, when discussing making a payment to Daniels, Trump told his then-attorney Michael Cohen to “get it done.”

Read the full story at the Wall Street Journal.

****************************

”President Pinocchio” and the regime of sleaze. Always thought Stormy was much more credible and a heck of a lot smarter than Trump. Just can’t figure out how a smart fundamentally nice person like her got mixed up with a total creep like Trump. But, it was consensual, and they are both into self promotion. Still, Trump’s lies about both his obvious involvement with Daniels & McDougal, combined with the stupidity of getting himself in that position in the first place, earns him a mixed “Three Pinocchio/Two Clown” Award!

Go figure,

PWS

11-09-18

🤥🤥🤥🤡🤡

ACTING AG MATT WHITAKER IS AN UNQUALIFIED, UNETHICAL, UNCONFIRMED TRUMP SYCOPHANT, MAKING HIM A WORTHY SUCCESSOR TO JEFF “GONZO APOCALYPTO” SESSIONS — But, Neal Katyal and George Conway Say He’s Also Serving Illegally – What Effect Could That Have On Removal Orders (& “Precedents”) Issued During His Tenure?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html

Katyal (former Acting Solicitor General) and Conway (Husband of Kelleyanne Conway) write in the NY Times:

What now seems an eternity ago, the conservative law professor Steven Calabresi published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May arguing that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. His article got a lot of attention, and it wasn’t long before President Trump picked up the argument, tweeting that “the Appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

Professor Calabresi’s article was based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Under that provision, so-called principal officers of the United States must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate under its “Advice and Consent” powers.

He argued that Mr. Mueller was a principal officer because he is exercising significant law enforcement authority and that since he has not been confirmed by the Senate, his appointment was unconstitutional. As one of us argued at the time, he was wrong. What makes an officer a principal officer is that he or she reports only to the president. No one else in government is that person’s boss. But Mr. Mueller reports to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. So, Mr. Mueller is what is known as an inferior officer, not a principal one, and his appointment without Senate approval was valid.

But Professor Calabresi and Mr. Trump were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very significant consequence today.

It means that Mr. Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.

Much of the commentary about Mr. Whitaker’s appointment has focused on all sorts of technical points about the Vacancies Reform Act and Justice Department succession statutes. But the flaw in the appointment of Mr. Whitaker, who was Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff at the Justice Department, runs much deeper. It defies one of the explicit checks and balances set out in the Constitution, a provision designed to protect us all against the centralization of government power.

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom Mr. Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground.

Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

What goes for a mere lawyer at the N.L.R.B. goes in spades for the attorney general of the United States, the head of the Justice Department and one of the most important people in the federal government. It is one thing to appoint an acting underling, like an acting solicitor general, a post one of us held. But those officials are always supervised by higher-ups; in the case of the solicitor general, by the attorney general and deputy attorney general, both confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. Whitaker has not been named to some junior post one or two levels below the Justice Department’s top job. He has now been vested with the law enforcement authority of the entire United States government, including the power to supervise Senate-confirmed officials like the deputy attorney general, the solicitor general and all United States attorneys.

We cannot tolerate such an evasion of the Constitution’s very explicit, textually precise design. Senate confirmation exists for a simple, and good, reason. Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody. His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation. (Yes, he was confirmed as a federal prosecutor in Iowa, in 2004, but Mr. Trump can’t cut and paste that old, lapsed confirmation to today.) For the president to install Mr. Whitaker as our chief law enforcement officer is to betray the entire structure of our charter document.

Related

Another view on the legality of Whitaker’s appointment

Opinion | Stephen I. Vladeck

Whitaker May Be a Bad Choice, but He’s a Legal One

Nov. 9, 2018

In times of crisis, interim appointments need to be made. Cabinet officials die, and wars and other tragic events occur. It is very difficult to see how the current situation comports with those situations. And even if it did, there are officials readily at hand, including the deputy attorney general and the solicitor general, who were nominated by Mr. Trump and confirmed by the Senate. Either could step in as acting attorney general, both constitutionally and statutorily.

Because Mr. Whitaker has not undergone the process of Senate confirmation, there has been no mechanism for scrutinizing whether he has the character and ability to evenhandedly enforce the law in a position of such grave responsibility. The public is entitled to that assurance, especially since Mr. Whitaker’s only supervisor is Mr. Trump himself, and the president is hopelessly compromised by the Mueller investigation. That is why adherence to the requirements of the Appointments Clause is so important here, and always.

As we wrote last week, the Constitution is a bipartisan document, written for the ages to guard against wrongdoing by officials of any party. Mr. Whitaker’s installation makes a mockery of our Constitution and our founders’ ideals. As Justice Thomas’s opinion in the N.L.R.B. case reminds us, the Constitution’s framers “had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked.” He added “they knew that liberty could be preserved only by ensuring that the powers of government would never be consolidated in one body.”

We must heed those words today.

Neal K. Katyal (@neal_katyal) was an acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama and is a lawyer at Hogan Lovells in Washington. George T. Conway III(@gtconway3d) is a litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

*************************************

Of course, not everyone agrees with Conway and Katyal. But, no matter how you slice it, the appointment of the obviously unqualified political hack Whitaker and his acceptance of the job notwithstanding his ethical conflicts and lack of qualifications is just another step in the total destruction of the US Department of Justice and the “Clowning of America!”

For that, both Trump and Whitaker get the coveted “Courtside Five Clown Award” (Trump winning for the second time this week!)

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

11-09-18

TRUMP CELEBRATES MIDTERM “VICTORY” WITH BOLD FOUR-PRONGED ATTACK ON CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW! — Trump Earns Courtside’s Coveted “Five Clown Rating!”

First, he trashed the 1^stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;
Second, he fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions (no tears, please, for this corrupt public official and immoral person) and appointed sycophantic Acting Attorney General (and former right-wing commentator and established Trump suck-up) Matt Whitaker, a sleazy maneuver which now gives Trump control over the Mueller investigation through Whittaker (indeed, some legal experts say this maneuver in and of itself could easily be construed as an obstruction of justice);
Third, while half-heartedly saying he would be willing to work with House Democrats, he then threatened them with retaliation if they had the audacity to exercise their Constitutional authority to investigate him and his corrupt Administration;
Finally, he reportedly plans on Friday to illegally overrule the Refugee Act of 1980 for asylum seekers through an “Executive Order” – a mean-spirited, controversial, and unnecessary move that almost certainly will be blocked by the Federal Courts therefore touching off yet another round of acrimonious and largely frivolous litigation. You can read Vivian Salama’s account about Trump’s latest plans to thumb his nose at the law in pursuit of his racist agenda in the WSJ here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-immigration-directive-revamping-asylum-system-1541629100?emailToken=00b769f8b7a4e89eba0f99cf5b2477154uBTkiIEqaA4RxhOj6r+MwpvKdjXbRWeUanRuOJdVFK4XBp2y4cx7py6fMlif4uGIYfAXBjcnBluaPYf4RL4PppT8TfGt2sTJrEbTE781qozrIjvN+p3sEae+AYFLY5x&reflink=article_email_share

And, remember folks, this is just “Day One of Phase II” of America’s Continuous National Clown Show! Stay tuned for more daily clown performances and hilarious degradations of America, our laws, human rights, and our values from under the Big Top! Today’s Trump performance get Courtside’s coveted “Five Clown” rating!

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

11-06-18

MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-resign-disgrace.html

Stern writes:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned on Wednesday at the request of Donald Trump. He served a little less than two years as the head of the Department of Justice. During that time, Sessions used his immense power to make America a crueler, more brutal place. He was one of the most sadistic and unscrupulous attorneys general in American history.

At the Department of Justice, Sessions enforced the law in a manner that harmed racial minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ people. He rolled backObama-era drug sentencing reforms in an effort to keep nonviolent offenders locked away for longer. He reversed a policy that limited the DOJ’s use of private prisons. He undermined consent decrees with law enforcement agencies that had a history of misconduct and killed a program that helped local agencies bring their policing in line with constitutional requirements. And he lobbied against bipartisan sentencing reform, falsely claiming that such legislation would benefit “a highly dangerous cohort of criminals.”

Sessions’ attack on immigrants was equally ruthless. He compelled immigration judges to order the deportation of more unauthorized immigrants and punished them when they did not. He barred most victims of domestic violence from seeking asylum in the United States, deporting survivors back to their persecutors. He attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, subjecting hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to deportation but was too inept to do so lawfully. He tried to prevent states and cities from protecting immigrants within their borders. And he implemented the “zero tolerance” family separation policy, imprisoning thousands of individuals at the border for the misdemeanor of unlawful entry, then seizing their children and locking them in cages. (Hundreds of these kids are still separatedfrom their parents.)

Meanwhile, Sessions mobilized the DOJ’s attorneys to torture immigrant minors in other ways. He fought in court to keep undocumented teenagers pregnant against their will, defending the Trump administration’s decision to block their access to abortion. His Justice Department made the astonishing claim that the federal government could decide that forced birth was in the “best interest” of children. It also revealed these minors’ pregnancies to family members who threatened to abuse them. And when the American Civil Liberties Union defeated this position in court, his DOJ launched a failed legal assault on individual ACLU lawyers for daring to defend their clients.

As he oversaw family separation, forced birth, and mass incarceration, Sessions found time to degrade LGBTQ Americans and their families. He issued a memo alleging that federal civil rights laws do not protect transgender employees, a position the Justice Department recently reiterated to the Supreme Court. He also argued that these civil rights laws do not protect gay people. His DOJ defended Trump’s ban on open transgender military service by claiming that trans people are disordered deviants. Under his leadership, the DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to rule that many businesses have a First Amendment right to turn away same-sex couples. (Sessions gave a speech to the anti-LGBTQ group that brought that case to SCOTUS, thanking them for their “important work” on behalf of religious liberty.)

The guiding principle of Sessions’ career is animus toward people who are unlike him. While serving in the Senate, he voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expressly protected LGBTQ women. He opposed immigration reform, including relief for young people brought to America by their parents as children. He voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He voted against a federal hate crime bill protecting gay people. Before that, as Alabama attorney general, he tried to prevent LGBTQ students from meeting at a public university. But as U.S. attorney general, he positioned himself as an impassioned defender of campus free speech.

While Sessions doesn’t identify as a white nationalist, his agenda as attorney general abetted the cause of white nationalism. His policies were designed to make the country more white by keeping out Hispanics and locking up blacks. His tenure will remain a permanent stain on the Department of Justice. Thousands of people were brutalized by his bigotry, and our country will not soon recover from the malice he unleashed.

His successor could be even worse.

*****************************

Can’t overstate the intentional damage that this immoral, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted man has done to millions of human lives and the moral and legal fabric of our country. “The Father of the New American Gulag,” America’s most notorious unpunished child abuser, and the destroyer of Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts are among a few of his many unsavory legacies!

The scary thing: Stern is right — “His successor could be even worse.” If so, the survival of our Constitution and our nation will be at risk!

PWS

11-06-18

BLOOMBERG REPORT: AS ONE PARTY RULE ENDS, BOTH SEE WAY FORWARD TO 2020 — For Dems, It’s Stay “On Message,” Hang On To Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, & Michigan, And Find A Dynamic National Leader To Carry The Message & Joust With Trump – For Trumpists, It’s Continue Leveraging An Election System That Largely Favors White Rural Areas, While Throwing “Red Meat” At Base Apparently Immune To Truth, Facts, Human Decency, & The Well-Being Of Their Fellow Americans!

https://apple.news/Af-KXd7j1QPCSp0T28lnpdg

Craig Gordon & Alex Wayne report for Bloomberg:

Vengeful Democrats vs. Angry Trump: A Post-Election Guide to DC

Both sides can find something to cheer in Tuesday’s election results. Democrats won the House and the rebuke of President Donald Trump they so desperately wanted, even as they fell short of a “blue wave.” Trump can rightfully say his last-minute barnstorming helped protect the Republican Senate majority.

The president has gamely declared it a good night. In reality, Trump’s presidency and his path to re-election grew more difficult after Tuesday.

Explore state-by-state election results with Bloomberg’s interactive map of the 2018 U.S. midterms.

The results reaffirmed the notion of a 50-50 America, and that’s now reflected in a Democratic House and Republican Senate. Here’s what to expect from divided government in Washington:

1. Trump’s re-election bid starts today, but it took a blow

The three Rust Belt states that propelled him to the presidency — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — all elected Democratic governors and senators. If Democrats can hold those 46 Electoral College votes along with the states that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, they’ll win the presidency two years from now.

Suburbanites and women showed Democrats a path back to the White House: run sensible candidates who talk kitchen-table issues like health care.

Trump’s signature legislative win — the tax cut — barely registered with voters, and a split Congress means few fresh achievements to run on.

Trump has a lot to lose if the economy goes downhill at some point before the next election. Some economists are already raising the possibility of a recession by 2020.

And Trump could be running under a cloud: His team seems ill-prepared for the cyclone of investigations and subpoenas headed his way, and whatever Special Counsel Robert Mueller has in store.

2. But Trump’s night had a silver lining

He showed his Trump mega-rallies still have potency in rural, Southern and Western states. His rallies boosted Republican Senate candidates in North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri and Texas.

Republicans picked up governorships in the two most important states in a presidential contest: Florida and Ohio. Trump gets some of the credit for those wins, showing he can run hard in those states in 2020.

Trump did little or nothing to expand his base, but by keeping the Senate, he showed his supporters are still there and willing to follow him.

3. Conservatives have reason to stick with Trump: Judges

Conservatives dream of stocking the federal bench for a generation, including the Supreme Court. A bigger majority means fewer nail-biters on nominations as the caucus waits on a single GOP senator like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski for the deciding vote.

Other Senate confirmations get easier, too. That will come in handy for the expected post-election house-cleaning. Replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, two of his most endangered Cabinet members, may not be as fraught.

4. Embattled Trump aides will head for the exits

The question is when, not if, the president gets rid of Sessions. And Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, never a Trump favorite, could take the fall for a failure to stop the flow of migrants across the Southern border. Trump has also had to fend off questions about the possible departure of Defense Secretary James Mattis.

Resignations will happen at the White House, but they’ll more likely be the result of exhaustion among Trump’s staff than a presidential shake-up.

5. House Democrats will push a broad anti-Trump agenda

Now dead: The GOP Tax Cut 2.0, along with any further attempt to repeal Obamacare.

Now very much alive: the subpoena machine that will torment Trump, on Russia, his businesses, his 2016 campaign, his decision to send troops to stop the migrant “caravan” and maybe even a bid to see his tax returns.

First order of business: H.R. 1, a sprawling good-government bill on voting rights, ethics and campaign finance. Then onto shoring up Obamacare and negotiating cheaper drug prices for Medicare.

6. Nancy Pelosi will be back as House speaker . . .

But she’ll have a hard time taming fellow Democrats.

A top Pelosi priority will be keeping a lid on investigation overreach and overheated impeachment talk, which some of her more liberal members may want to indulge — but which could backfire with many Americans, including Democrats.

7. 2018 was the Year of the Woman — not just symbolically

About 100 women were elected to Congress, the most in history.

That included the first two Muslim women — Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who’s also the first Somali-American woman in Congress. Ayanna Pressley will be the first black woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts, and Republican Marsha Blackburn will be the first woman Tennessee has elected to the Senate.

Women with national-security expertise flipped several GOP-held districts for Democrats. In New Jersey, former Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill defeated Republican Jay Webber. Outside Richmond, Virginia, former CIA agent Abigail Spanberger defeated one of the most conservative members of the House, Representative Dave Brat. And in Norfolk, Virginia, retired Navy officer Elaine Luria defeated incumbent Republican Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL.

8. Keep an eye on. . .

One big winner: Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who’s an odd mix: a progressive populist who supported Trump’s effort to renegotiate the Nafta deal. He could teach his party how to win on the trade issue.

One big loser: Beto O’Rourke, who lost to Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz. A Democratic voter favorite, O’Rourke may run for president in 2020, even in defeat.

The would-be governors: Andrew Gillum had Democrats thinking they could win Florida, but he fell short to Trump favorite Ron DeSantis. Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams isn’t conceding in her race against Republican Brian Kemp. Both Gillum and Abrams sought to be the first African-American governors in their states.

Republican up-and-comers include Josh Hawley, 38, who defeated incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri, and South Dakota’s Kristi Noem, who becomes the state’s first female governor.

9. Stymied at home, Trump will likely look abroad

The president has a lot of latitude to act alone on foreign policy. He’s heading into a busy foreign policy period, with trips to France this weekend and the Group of 20 summit in Argentina at the end of the month, when he expects to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The House has little say over foreign policy — only the Republican-led Senate votes on treaties, for example.

Chinese leaders seem open to a trade deal in Buenos Aires, and so does Trump.

But Trump is free to continue to ratchet up tariffs on China or other economic competitors, abandon international agreements like the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, and negotiate with adversaries such as Russia and North Korea.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Craig Gordon in Washington at cgordon39@bloomberg.net;
Alex Wayne in Washington at awayne3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Michael Shepard at mshepard7@bloomberg.net

**********************************************

Seems about right to me. Obviously, Trump sees that doubling down on his divisiveness, lies, racism, and illegal behavior could be a path to victory and holding on to the Senate in 2020, even if he gets clobbered in the popular vote, which is likely.

While there do appear to be some areas of common interest, it’s going to be pretty hard for Dems to “reach across the aisle” when the folks on the other side are conducting a cultural war of lies against them and their constituency — which actually is the majority of Americans.

Meanwhile with a free rein on reshaping the Federal Courts in his own image, Trump and the GOP probably figure that controlling three of the four power centers of Government is enough, and don’t see any need to work with Dems on advancing the public interest. Better to just blame them for everything that goes wrong as a result of Trump’s inability to govern.

I can see that it might (or might not) work again for Trump and his GOP in 2020, and perhaps beyond. On the other hand, the long-term outlook still appears to favors the Dems, if the country survives that long, or Vladimir Putin if it doesn’t.

Governing in the interests of a dwindling, disgruntled White minority who want to turn us back to the “bad old days” of inequality, exclusion, and exclusive White privilege, while dissing the interests of those who are America’s future can’t possibly be a formula for long-term success. Either the majority at some point will have to gain political control and establish government in the overall public interest, or the country will simply come apart at the seams in a civil discord that can’t be repaired. Putin and his successors would be quite happy to see us “self-destruct.” Not a probability, but certainly a possibility.

PWS

11-06-18

ADAM SERWER IN THE ATLANTIC: The Trump/Sessions/Miller White Nationalist Policies: It’s All About Cruelty & Hate!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

Adam Serwer writes in The Atlantic:

The Museum of African-American History and Culture is in part a catalog of cruelty. Amid all the stories of perseverance, tragedy, and unlikely triumph are the artifacts of inhumanity and barbarism: the child-size slave shackles, the bright red robes of the wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, the recordings of civil-rights protesters being brutalized by police.

Make your conversation more interesting

Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and voices.

The artifacts that persist in my memory, the way a bright flash does when you close your eyes, are the photographs of lynchings. But it’s not the burned, mutilated bodies that stick with me. It’s the faces of the white men in the crowd. There’s the photo of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in Indiana in 1930, in which a white man can be seen grinning at the camera as he tenderly holds the hand of his wife or girlfriend. There’s the undated photo from Duluth, Minnesota, in which grinning white men stand next to the mutilated, half-naked bodies of two men lashed to a post in the street—one of the white men is straining to get into the picture, his smile cutting from ear to ear. There’s the photo of a crowd of white men huddled behind the smoldering corpse of a man burned to death; one of them is wearing a smart suit, a fedora hat, and a bright smile.

Their names have mostly been lost to time. But these grinning men were someone’s brother, son, husband, father. They were human beings, people who took immense pleasure in the utter cruelty of torturing others to death—and were so proud of doing so that they posed for photographs with their handiwork, jostling to ensure they caught the eye of the lens, so that the world would know they’d been there. Their cruelty made them feel good, it made them feel proud, it made them feel happy. And it made them feel closer to one another.

The Trump era is such a whirlwind of cruelty that it can be hard to keep track. This week alone, the news broke that the Trump administration was seeking to ethnically cleanse more than 193,000 American children of immigrants whose temporary protected status had been revoked by the administration, that the Department of Homeland Security had lied about creating a database of children that would make it possible to unite them with the families the Trump administration had arbitrarily destroyed, that the White House was considering a blanket ban on visas for Chinese students, and that it would deny visas to the same-sex partners of foreign officials. At a rally in Mississippi, a crowd of Trump supporters cheered as the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who has said that Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump has nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, attempted to rape her when she was a teenager. “Lock her up!” they shouted.Ford testified to the Senate, utilizing her professional expertise to describe the encounter, that one of the parts of the incident she remembered most was Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing at her as Kavanaugh fumbled at her clothing. “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” Ford said, referring to the part of the brain that processes emotion and memory, “the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.” And then at Tuesday’s rally, the president made his supporters laugh at her.

Further reading: The most striking thing about Trump’s mockery of Christine Blasey Ford

Even those who believe that Ford fabricated her account, or was mistaken in its details, can see that the president’s mocking of her testimony renders all sexual-assault survivors collateral damage. Anyone afraid of coming forward, afraid that she would not be believed, can now look to the president to see her fears realized. Once malice is embraced as a virtue, it is impossible to contain.

The cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies, and the ritual rhetorical flaying of his targets before his supporters, are intimately connected. As Lili Loofbourow wrote of the Kavanaugh incident in Slate, adolescent male cruelty toward women is a bonding mechanism, a vehicle for intimacy through contempt. The white men in the lynching photos are smiling not merely because of what they have done, but because they have done it together.

We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era. There were the border-patrol agents cracking up at the crying immigrant childrenseparated from their families, and the Trump adviser who delighted white supremacists when he mocked a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. There were the police who laughed uproariously when the president encouraged them to abuse suspects, and the Fox News hosts mocking a survivor of the Pulse Nightclub massacre (and in the process inundating him with threats), the survivors of sexual assault protesting to Senator Jeff Flake, the women who said the president had sexually assaulted them, and the teen survivors of the Parkland school shooting. There was the president mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria, the black athletes protesting unjustified killings by the police, the women of the #MeToomovement who have come forward with stories of sexual abuse, and the disabled reporter whose crime was reporting on Trump truthfully. It is not just that the perpetrators of this cruelty enjoy it; it is that they enjoy it with one another. Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to one another, and to Trump.

Read Adam Serwer on why the white nationalists are winning

Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

The laughter undergirds the daily spectacle of insincerity, as the president and his aides pledge fealty to bedrock democratic principles they have no intention of respecting. The president who demanded the execution of five black and Latino teenagers for a crime they didn’t commit decrying “false accusations,” when his Supreme Court nominee stands accused; his supporters who fancy themselves champions of free speech meet references to Hillary Clinton or a woman whose only crime was coming forward to offer her own story of abuse with screams of “Lock her up!” The political movement that elected a president who wanted to ban immigration by adherents of an entire religion, who encourages police to brutalize suspects, and who has destroyed thousands of immigrant families for violations of the law less serious than those of which he and his coterie stand accused, now laments the state of due process.

This isn’t incoherent. It reflects a clear principle: Only the president and his allies, his supporters, and their anointed are entitled to the rights and protections of the law, and if necessary, immunity from it. The rest of us are entitled only to cruelty, by their whim. This is how the powerful have ever kept the powerless divided and in their place, and enriched themselves in the process.

Further reading: I know Brett Kavanaugh, but I wouldn’t confirm him

A blockbuster New York Times investigation on Tuesday reported that President Trump’s wealth was largely inherited through fraudulent schemes, that he became a millionaire while still a child, and that his fortune persists in spite of his fumbling entrepreneurship, not because of it. The stories are not unconnected. The president and his advisers have sought to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense; they have attempted to corrupt federal law-enforcement agencies to protect themselves and their cohorts, and they have exploited the nation’s darkest impulses in the pursuit of profit. But their ability to get away with this fraud is tied to cruelty.

Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.

*************************************************

I could see it in the mindless clapping, revolting laughter, and sickening glee in the eyes of the ugly, overwhelmingly White crowd (many of them women, although a few of the women didn’t seem amused) behind Trump as he denigrated and mocked Christine Blasey Ford this week.

Also in the angry, distorted snarl of Sen. Lindsey Graham as he absurdly called the Kavanaugh hearings “the most unethical” performance (LG, my man, where were you when Mitch, you, and your colleagues totally stiffed a much better qualified Obama appointment, , without even giving him the courtesy of a hearing?).

Also in the incredibly arrogant, partisan, rude, condescending, and openly misogynistic way that Kavanaugh treated Senator Amy Klobuchar’s totally reasonable inquiry. Would Senator Susan Collins still have voted for “BKavs” if he had treated her that way? I doubt it! But, I guess her women colleagues don’t matter. And, it appears that “Chairman Chuckie” Grassley doesn’t really need or want any GOP women on his “Old Boys Club” (a/k/a Senate Judiciary Committee.) Only Democrat women can hack the stress and workload of serving on a daily basis with the GOP misogynists.

What do you call a party whose “base” glories in the pain and suffering of others? The 21st Century GOP!

It’s an existential threat to the future of our country! If decent folks don’t start using the ballot box to remove the GOP from power at every level, it might be too late for the majority of us to take our country back from the misguided minority who have taken power! Get out the vote in November!

PWS

10-07-18

GONZO’S WORLD: HOW SESSIONS IGNORES FACTS AND MISREPRESENTS STATISTICS TO SUPPORT HIS PRE-ORDAINED RACIST, WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA! — “[A] bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-rejected-report-showing-refugees-did-not-pose-major-n906681

Dan De Luce and Julia Edwards Ainsley report for NBC News:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has consistently sought to exaggerate the potential security threat posed by refugees and dismissed an intelligence assessment last year that showed refugeesdid not present a significant threat to the U.S., three former senior officials told NBC News.

Hard-liners in the administration then issued their own report this year that several former officials and rights groups say misstates the evidence and inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S.

At a meeting in September 2017 with senior officials discussing refugee admissions, a representative from the National Counterterrorism Center came ready to present a report that analyzed the possible risks presented by refugees entering the country.

But before he could discuss the report, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand dismissed the report, saying her boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, would not be guided by its findings.

“We read that. The attorney general doesn’t agree with the conclusions of that report,” she said, according to two officials familiar with the meeting, including one who was in the room at the time.

Brand’s blunt veto of the intelligence assessment shocked career civil servants at the interagency meeting, which seemed to expose a bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda. Her response also amounted to a rejection of her own department’s view, as the FBI, part of the Justice Department, had contributed to the assessment.

WH reportedly looking to turn away an additional 20K refugees

AUG.15.201804:55

“She just dismissed them,” said the former official who attended the meeting.

The intelligence assessment was “inappropriately discredited as a result of that exchange,” said the ex-official. The episode made clear that “you weren’t able to have an honest conversation about the risk.”

A current DHS official defended the administration’s response to the intelligence assessment, saying immigration policy in the Trump administration does not rely solely on “historical data about terrorism trends,” but rather “is an all-of-the-above approach that looks at every single pathway that we think it is possible for a terrorist to come into the United States.”

A spokeswoman for DHS said, “If we only look at what terrorists have done in the past, we will never be able to prevent future attacks … We cannot let dangerous individuals slip through the cracks and exploit our refugee program, which is why we have implemented security enhancements that would prevent such violent individuals from reaching our shores, while still upholding our humanitarian ideals.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

Following the dismissal of the assessment, anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration clashed with civil servants about how to portray the possible threat from refugees in documents drafted for inter-agency discussions, former officials said. In the end, the president’s decision last year to lower the ceiling for refugee admissions to 45,000 did not refer to security threats, but cited staffing shortages at DHS as the rationale. But once the decision was issued, the White House released a public statement that suggested the president’s decision was driven mainly by security concerns and said “some refugees” admitted into the country had posed a threat to public safety.

An Afghan refugee sleeps on the ground while another looks out a window in an abandoned warehouse where they and other migrants took refuge in Belgrade, Serbia, on Feb. 1, 2017.Muhammed Muheisen / AP file

“President Donald J. Trump is taking the responsible approach to promote the safety of the American people,” said the Sept. 29 statement.

Political appointees in the Trump administration then wrote a new report a few months later that seemed to contradict the view of the country’s spy agencies.

The January 2018 report by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security stated that “three out of every four, or 402, individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016 were foreign-born.”

In a press release at the time, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the report showed the need for tougher screening of travelers entering the country and served as “a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists.”

But the report is being challenged in court by several former officials and rights groups who say it inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S. Two lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and California allege the report improperly excludes incidents committed by domestic terrorists, like white supremacists, and wrongfully includes a significant number of naturalized U.S. citizens and foreigners who committed crimes overseas and were brought to the United States for the purpose of standing trial.

Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand speaks during the opening of the summit on Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking at Department of Justice in Washington, on Feb. 2, 2018.Jose Luis Magana / AP file

Mary McCord, former assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, which prosecutes terrorism charges, said the January 2018 report is “unfortunately both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.”

“The result is a report that presents an inaccurate picture of the threat of terrorism in the United States,” McCord said.

When the report was released in January 2018, Trump tweeted that it showed the need to move away from “random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit based” because it showed that “the nearly 3 in 4 individuals convicted of terrorism-related charges are foreign-born.”

But the report only focuses on international terrorism, which is defined as a crime committed on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. The document excludes domestic terrorism committed by groups such as white supremacists or anti-government militias, which are more likely to be supported by those born in the U.S.

Because of the way the terrorism statute is written, those who support domestic organizations like anti-government or white supremacists groups cannot be charged with terrorism, even if the groups they support have committed crimes. Only supporters of foreign terrorist organizations designated by the State Department can be charged with “material support” of terrorism.

Still, Trump has repeatedly stated that the overwhelming majority of terrorists in the United States came from overseas, even before the 2018 report.

In his first speech to Congress in February 2017, Trump said that the “vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our own country.”

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, MSNBC legal analyst and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, took issue with that statement and sued the Justice Department to provide documents that backed up the president’s claim. But the Department was unable to locate any records.

“There are a lot of domestic terrorism cases, and they are generally not committed by people born abroad. To the extent that those cases were excluded — white supremacist violence, anti-abortion terrorism and militia violence — the inquiry is grossly biased,” Wittes wrote on Lawfare.

Wittes said that almost 100, or about a quarter, of the 402 individuals listed as foreign-born terrorists committed their crimes overseas and were brought to the U.S. to face trial.

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller at roundtable discussion on California immigration policy at the White House on May 16.Evan Vucci / AP file

During her time in government as the chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Barbara Strack said her staff worked diligently to thoroughly vet refugees for any possible terrorist links. But she said there was no information she came across that indicated refugees posed a significant security threat.

“I did not see evidence that refugees presented an elevated national security risk compared to other categories of travelers to the United States,” she told NBC News.

The administration must decide by the end of the month how many refugees to allow in the country in the next fiscal year. Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, known for his hawkish stance on immigration, has been pushing for a drastic reduction in the ceiling.

The cap was set at 45,000 last year, but the number of refugees allowed in the country has fallen far below that ceiling, with only about 20,000 resettled in the United States since October 2017. Rights advocates and former officials accuse the White House of intentionally slowing down the bureaucratic process to keep the numbers down, overloading the FBI and other government agencies with duplicative procedures.

*******************************************

This level of total intellectual dishonesty, overt racism, and policy driven solely by a White Nationalist philosophy and political agenda by an Attorney General is unprecedented in my experience at the DOJ.

If you remember, Brand escaped to a “soft landing” in the private sector earlier this year. One of my theories is that she was trying to protect herself and her reputation for a future Federal Judgeship. If and when that happens, I hope that those serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee will remember her completely sleazy role in carrying Sessions’s racist-polluted water on this one. Someone with no respect for facts, the law, humanity, or professional expertise definitely does not deserve to be on the Federal Bench!

And for Pete’s sake don’t credit Sessions with any integrity whatsoever in not resigning under pressure from our “Mussolini Wannabe.” He’s not “protecting” the Mueller investigation or anything else worthy in the DOJ. In fact, he has wholly politicized the DOJ and taken it down into the gutter. The reason he “hangs on” is not because he respects the Constitution or rule of law. Clearly, he doesn’t! No, it’s because he wants to do as much damage to civil rights and people of color as he can during his toxic tenure.

Make no mistake, that damage he has done, as has been reported elsewhere, is very substantial. It has set the goals that Dr. Martin Luther King and others fought for and even gave their lives for back by decades. Despicable!

Sessions’s White-Nationalist driven lies and false narratives about refugees are described above. For the truth about refugees and immigrants and all of the great things they have done and continue to do for our country, see my recent post at https://wp.me/p8eeJm-313.

Due Process Forever — Jeff Sessions Never!

PWS

09-07-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO KILL 1,400 AMERICANS! — Is Anyone Paying Attention?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/trump-coal-plan-will-kill-1400-americans-a-year

Bess Levin writes for Vanity Fair:

Last week, we learned that Donald Trump’scoal-loving administration was set to release a proposal that would allow coal-burning plants to flood the planet with greenhouse gas emissions, raising a giant middle finger to the killjoy tree-huggers who insist on protecting the environment and human health through silly little things like government regulations. Whereas Barack Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan would have caused a shift toward less-dirty energy sources like wind, natural gas, and solar, the White House’s plan would prop up coal plants by giving states free rein to come up with their own rules, or letting them petition to opt out of regulations altogether. On Tuesday, the administration officially unveiled the proposal, and as it turns out, it’s not as bad as everyone feared—it’s much, much worse, if one considers the deaths of 1,400 Americans and the hastened demise of the planet to be “worse.”

The New York Times [reports] that, buried within 289 pages of technical analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency casually notes that under the scenario individual states are most likely to follow in order to comply with Trump’s hilariously titled “Affordable Clean Energy rule,” between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths will occur each year by 2030 due to “increased rates of microscopic airborne particulates known as PM 2.5.” On the flip side, Obama’s Clean Power Plan was expected to prevent between 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030, but that guy’s a law-flouting Commie, so screw him. In addition, the Trump administration’s own analysis concludes that its plan would cause 48,000 new cases of “exacerbated asthma” and a minimum of 21,000 missed school days a year by 2030 due to ozone-related illnesses. By contrast, the plan it is replacing would have resulted in a significant drop in new instances of asthma and 180,000 fewer missed school days annually.

But breathing, going to school, and a normal life-expectancy are obviously for losers, which is presumably why William Wehrum, the acting administrator of the E.P.A.’s Office of Air and Radiation, simply referred to the plan’s downsides as “collateral effects” in a comment to the Times; he also said that the administration has “aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.” (Incidentally, Wehrum spent much of the past 10 years working to destroy air-pollution rules as a lawyer representing—wait for it—coal-burning power plants, chemical manufacturers, oil drillers, and refineries. He was able to so seamlessly transition to weakening air-pollutant rules from within the E.P.A. thanks to “a quirk in federal ethics rules [that] limit the activities of officials who join the government from industry [but are] less restrictive for lawyers than for officials who had worked as registered lobbyists.”)

Speaking of premature deaths, Trump is apparently super concerned about them—not when they happen to humans, of course, but to birds, whose early demise he vastly overestimated last night in a characteristically crazy, off-the-rails speech decrying wind turbines and other forms of energy that both cost and pollute less than coal. Quoth the man who is somehow the president of the United States:

You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills. You know, the wind wheels [mimics windmill noise, mimes shooting gun], “Bing!” That’s the end of that one. If the birds don’t kill it first. The birds could kill it first. They kill so many birds. You look underneath some of those windmills, it’s like a killing field, the birds. But uh, you know, that’s what they were going to, they were going to windmills. And you know, don’t worry about wind, when the wind doesn’t blow, I said, “What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?” Well, then we have a problem. O.K. good. They were putting him in areas where they didn’t have much wind, too. And it’s a subsidary [sic]—you need subsidy for windmills. You need subsidy. Who wants to have energy where you need subsidy? So, uh, the coal is doing great.

Really, what else is there to add?

************************

Read the rest of the Levin Report at the link.

I suppose with a President who favors KGB vet Putin over our intelligence officers, is dodging criminal charges for payoffs to an adult entertainment star and a Playboy model, and surrounds himself with family members, criminals, grifters, and wingnut ideologues, deciding to sacrifice 1,400 Americans to promote a dying industry that damages the health and welfare of its employees is sort of “below the radar screen.”

But, it’s on the screen over here at “courtside.”

PWS

08-23-18

RIGHT WING APOLOGISTS DOUBLE DOWN ON LIES AND MYTHS AS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SINKS DEEPER INTO THE QUICKSAND! — “On cue, conservatives pulled out every single pro-Trump defense they had concocted over the past two years.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/right-wing-response-michael-cohen-paul-manafort-convictions?mbid=nl_CH_5b7dac2bf9a65f4b9ec05fbd&CNDID=48297443&spMailingID=14112614&spUserID=MjMzNDQ1MzU1ODE2S0&spJobID=1462003727&spReportId=MTQ2MjAwMzcyNwS2

Tina Nguyen writes in Vanity Fair:

Just hours after Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, pled guilty to violating campaign-finance law on behalf of an unnamed political candidate in 2016, and Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager, was convicted of eight counts of financial fraud, Trump was firmly ensconced in the safe space of a political rally in West Virginia, greeted by comforting chants of “Lock her up!” For the next few hours, the president studiously avoided mentioning the two men who may very well have thrown his political future into jeopardy, freewheeling instead about “no collusion” before a crowd that would accept—and even repeat—virtually anything he said. Yet even as the president pontificated, his right-wing allies found themselves in the uncomfortable position of being forced to fill his silence. Blindsided by not one, but twodamning convictions, they did the only thing they could: everything. “There are a lot of lines of defense that are being wheeled out right now,” Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt observed to me. “It feels very much like throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.”

On cue, the right’s public-facing side pulled out every single pro-Trump defense it had concocted over the past two years. Within an hour of the verdicts breaking, The Five’s Greg Gutfeld was aggressively dismissing Cohen and Manafort as “two men who most Americans don’t know their names.” Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo went after Hillary Clinton, saying Tuesday morning that Robert Mueller’s probe had no legitimacy unless the former Democratic presidential candidate was likewise investigated for the infamous Steele dossier. A shrewder group of Republicans converged on the seeming lack of Russia-related convictions in the Manafort trial, putting their disavowals on hold: “Thus far, there have yet to be any charges or convictions for colluding with the Russian government by any member of the Trump campaign,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in a statement, in one of the more measured defenses coming out of the Republican Party. The line made its way into the official G.O.P. defense, according to notes that a surrogate texted to reporter Josh Dawsey.

A less artful group of Trump supporters deployed a different line of logic: if the Manafort convictions carried no mention of Russia, then the media’s Russia-meddling narrative was, ipso facto, false, and Trump was therefore innocent (never mind the fact that a second Manafort trial, centering around the former G.O.P. operative’s extensive work in Russia and the Ukraine, is set to begin in D.C. in less than a month). “So all this legal activity strange I see no ‘Russian collusion’ in any breaking news,” tweeted Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and the husband of White House communications director Mercedes Schlapp. “Odd.” Still others, said Holt, went further off the deep end, asserting that the Justice Department was being “run as part of a conspiracy theory,” and the trial wasn’t proof of the “Russian hacking narrative’s” veracity.

Almost simultaneously, a large segment of Trump’s diehard, MAGA-oriented allies began pushing the story of Mollie Tibbetts, a college student who was allegedly murdered by an undocumented immigrant. The lead story on Fox News’s home page was dedicated exclusively to the case, as was Breitbart’s, while MAGA wunderkinds Charlie Kirk,Candace Owens, and Tomi Lahren all tweeted that Tibbetts’s story ought to be top-line news, and lamented the “liberal media’s” preoccupation with Manafort and Cohen.

Fox and Friends simply ignored the convictions altogether in favor of discussing Tibbetts, along with kneeling N.F.L. protesters, and Andrew Cuomo’s recent gaffes. Though the outpouring could be read as spontaneous, it could not have come at a more convenient time—as former speaker Newt Gingrich put it to Axios, “If Mollie Tibbetts is a household name by October, Democrats will be in deep trouble. If we can be blocked by Manafort-Cohen, etc., then G.O.P. could lose [the House] badly.”

Behind the scenes, Republicans reportedly wrung their hands, increasingly concerned that the two cases, and Cohen’s in particular, could herald the president’s doom. “The verdict in the Manafort trial isn’t nearly as worrisome to me as the Cohen agreement and the Cohen statement,” former Trump adviser Michael Caputo told Politico. “It’s probably the worst thing so far in this whole investigation stage of the presidency.” “There was political momentum building to wrap up the Mueller probe soon,” a former administration official fretted to the outlet. “At the very least, in the short term, these two developments will pretty significantly bolster the office of the special counsel and people’s perceptions of it.” The perception, it seems, is widespread:

Nearly a dozen people close to the president, including current and former White House aides, acknowledged that Tuesday was one of the darkest days of Trump’s year and a half in office. And they worried that the revelations—even if they are unrelated to allegations of collusion with Russia—could lend new credence to the Mueller probe, even after the president’s allies spent months undercutting public faith in the investigation.

A close Trump friend confessed to Axios that they are “a bit concern[ed] about what he would do fully backed into a corner.” And a “usually buoyant outside West Wing adviser” read the tea leaves, noting, “Booming economy, robust bull market, troops in harm’s way but not in a large-scale war. And yet the president is enmeshed in a series of scandals and controversies . . . and that is before the Dems in the House start with the investigations.”

But by Wednesday morning, the G.O.P.’s fearless leader had returned from West Virginia and thrown himself back into the fray, making it clear what he wanted his followers to do: hail Manafort as a “brave man” who escaped 10 counts but fell victim to the Russia “witch hunt;” and jeer Cohen, the bad lawyer who pled guilty to things that were “not a crime.” “Whenever Trump tweets out what could be perceived as the official response, that tends to take over,” Holt said. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see if that becomes the primary line of defense.”

***********************************

There’s only going to be one “right side of history” on this one. And, Trump and his supporters won’t be on it.

PWS

08-22-18

GONZO’S WORLD: FROM PLUM TO PRUNE IN NO TIME FLAT — Once The Premier Assignment For Top Government Lawyers, The USDOJ Has Become A Legal Cesspool Where Nobody Really Wants To Work Under The Toxic Leadership Of Trump, Sessions, & Co!

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-justice-department-vacancies?mbid=nl_th_5b185e9a63b65d128d354892&CNDID=48297443&spMailingID=13649278&spUserID=MjMzNDQ1MzU1ODE2S0&spJobID=1420576926&spReportId=MTQyMDU3NjkyNgS2

Abigail Tracy in Vanity Fair:

One of the great under-reported stories of the Trump era is the extent to which the toxicity of the current administration has made high-level government appointments—once among the nation’s most prestigious vocations, and a stepping stone to more lucrative careers—virtually radioactive. John Kelly is said to be hard-pressed to fill out the ranks; State Department departures amount to “a hit on personnel that lasts a decade,” per one former official; and in policy areas from international trade to negotiations with North Korea, Donald Trump’sWhite House has failed to attract much-needed expertise. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than at the Justice Department, where 500 days into Trump’s term, his administration is still struggling to fill top spots. According to a Wall Street Journal report published Tuesday, the White House has failed to persuade at least three people to accept the traditionally plum position of associate attorney general, the No. 3 job at the D.O.J., prompting an official pause to the search.

Given the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the perilous position of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whoever fills the spot could realistically find themselves overseeing Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The possibility has already (reportedly) scared away one associate A.G.: Rachel Brand, who left the role in February for an executive position at Walmart, told officials the job was too good to pass up. But sources close to Brand told NBC News that she was “frustrated by vacancies at the department and feared she would be asked to oversee the Russia investigation.” (A Justice Department spokeswoman pushed back on the report, calling it “false and frankly ridiculous.”) Two other candidates, attorneys Helgi Walker and Kate Todd— both veterans of the George W. Bush administration and Clarence Thomas clerkships—turned down the job, sources told the Journal, though their motivations for doing so are unclear. Nor is the No. 3 spot the only D.O.J. position the White House has failed to fill: according to the Journal, at least five high-profile units at the Justice Department still don’t have permanent, politically appointed leaders, including the criminal, civil, and tax divisions.

In a few cases, the Trump administration’s picks have been stalled in the confirmation process—the heads of both the criminal and civil units were named a year ago, for instance, but still haven’t been scheduled for a Senate vote. Per the Journal, the Russia probe is at play here, too: Democrats are “pressing nominees about how they would handle the probe should they become involved in it,” and Republicans, too, have been slow to push for a vote.

The pall of the Russia probe hangs equally heavy over current D.O.J. officials, who are constantly dodging attacks from the president over their own roles. Trump has repeatedly and publicly admonished Sessions over his recusal; in his latest attack, Trump blamed the top lawyer for the probe’s indefinite timeline. “The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself . . . I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined,” Trump tweeted, adding, “Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!” The Trump-Sessions relationship has reportedly deteriorated to the point that Trump refuses to say the former Alabama senator’s name out loud, a practice his stop aides have also picked up:

Trump’s fury with Sessions is so ever-present it has taken to darkening his moods even during otherwise happy moments. On Thursday, Trump was on Air Force One returning from a trip to Texas, reveling in both a successful day of fundraising and the heads-up he had received from economic adviser Larry Kudlow that the next day’s jobs report would be positive.

But when an aide mentioned Sessions, Trump abruptly ended the conversation and unmuted the television in his office broadcasting Fox News, dismissing the staffer to resume watching cable, according to a person familiar with the exchange.

Rosenstein, too, has been a frequent presidential punching bag. While Trump has targeted Sessions for his “original sin” of recusal, the deputy attorney general is the one responsible for appointing Mueller in the first place, not to mention for signing off on the F.B.I. raid of Michael Cohen. He’s battled with Trump allies over D.O.J. document requests and has come under scrutiny for the role he played in James Comey’s firing: on Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters that Rosenstein should be a key witness in the obstruction of justice aspect of the investigation, considering he penned a letter recommending Comey’s dismissal on the grounds that the former F.B.I. director mishandled the probe into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. Graham also sent the D.A.G. a letter questioning Rosenstein’s oversight of the investigation late last month.

The White House’s struggle to fill out the ranks would result in an unusual situation should Rosenstein recuse himself, resign, or be fired—all possible outcomes. With Jesse Panuccio serving in an acting capacity as the associate attorney general, the responsibility of overseeing the Russia probe would likely fall to Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Typically, Francisco’s job is to argue on the government’s behalf in cases that go before the Supreme Court. And while it’s unclear how Francisco would treat the role, what’s much less ambiguous is how Trump would want him to treat it. “When you look at the I.R.S. scandal, when you look at the guns for whatever, when you look at all of the tremendous, aah, real problems they had, not made-up problems like Russian collusion, these were real problems,” Trump told The New York Times. “When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I’ll be honest.”

******************************************

Gee, I remember how totally excited I was the day I got my job offer to serve as a GS-11 Attorney Adviser at the BIA under the DOJ Honors Program in 1973. Short of family events, it was one of the most exciting and satisfying events of my life. Who would have thought that 45 years later the once-proud DOJ would be run by a Jim Crow wannabe working for a White Nationalist regime?

Most of the “vibes” that I get are that everyone eligible or nearly eligible for retirement at the DOJ is getting those retirement estimates updated. Better hurry, though, before Trump & the GOP Know Nothings put the finishing touches on their plan to destroy the retirement system, the merit Civil Service, and return to the “good old days” of the spoils system where jobs could be handed out to political cronies and sycophants who could be hired and fired at will. And, of course, anyone with the integrity to stand up to these political hacks could be unceremoniously fired on the spot to make way for the kakistocracy.

Just like destroying the Constitution disingenuously is called “restoring the rule of law” in the Trump Administration, replacing the merit-based career Civil Service with a sycophantic kakistocracy is what disingenuously is termed “promoting accountability.”

PWS

06-11-18

MASHA GESSEN IN THE NEW YORKER: THE GREAT MORAL DILEMMA OF THE TRUMP ERA: Total Resistance Or “Damage Control?” — “In our case, stepping outside the lie means refusing—stubbornly, consistently, incrementally—to lend credence to the opposite of politics, the opposite of diplomacy, and the opposite of sanity. That would require thinking, reading, and speaking critically: not treating an outburst as though it were politics, a tantrum as though it were diplomacy, and a delusion as though it were aspiration.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/in-the-trump-era-we-are-losing-the-ability-to-distinguish-reality-from-vacuum

Gessen writes:

The Trump Presidency is an age of unanswerable questions and lose-lose propositions. How is one to maintain sanity, decency, and a measure of moral courage? In a pair of thoughtful essays in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick tackles the problems of dealing with the everyday nature of our current political disaster and of deciding on the best way to try to save the country from Donald Trump: by staying close to him, or by walking away. The latter is a question for members of the Administration and for congressional Republicans. “This is the time,” Lithwick writes, to “think about what combination of exit and voice can make a meaningful difference if a real crisis were to happen. Or rather, when the real crisis happens—if we are not there already.”

This is not a new question. Many people will continue posing it to themselves and others with ever more frustrating results, because it cannot be answered. Is the possibility of moderating the damage done by this Administration worth sacrificing one’s moral principles? Should one protect one’s individual integrity by sacrificing the chance to moderate damage done by this Administration? We can’t possibly know. We don’t have the information necessary to evaluate these options in the short term. Did H. R. McMaster, during his tenure as Trump’s national-security adviser, prevent an unknown number of disasters? If he did, was it worth whatever psychic and intellectual price he paid? It’s likely that he himself doesn’t know. For those who have so far decided to stay, whether in the Administration or in the Republican Party, small daily sacrifices of personal integrity become part of their sunk cost in the project of staying in; these people inevitably grow more committed and less critical. The landscape keeps shifting, the stakes keep changing, and the crises keep mounting.

The overstimulation of the age of Trump, meanwhile, makes us lose track of time and whatever small sense humans normally have of themselves in history. We forget what happened a month ago. If we look away for a day, we miss news that seems momentous to others—only to be forgotten, too, in a week. Living in a shared reality with our fellow-citizens is an endless triathlon of reading, talking, and panicking. It creates the worst possible frame of mind for answering vexing moral questions, especially ones that require a choice between two desperately unsatisfying options.

Thinking morally about the Trump era requires a different temporal frame. It requires a look at the present through the prism of the future. There will come a time after Trump, and we need to consider how we will enter it. What are we going to take with us into that time—what kind of politics, language, and culture? How will we recover from years of policy (if you can call it that) being made by tweet? How will we reclaim simple and essential words? Most important, how will we restart a political conversation? Political discourse was in crisis before Trump—no wonder Americans of all stripes have become accustomed to using the words “politics” and “political” to denote substance-free transactions in the electoral arena. But, under Trump, it is nearing complete destruction.

Consider the last month’s worth of conversation about Trump and North Korea. Forgetting the President’s “little rocket man” remarks and building on months of denial that Trump had brought the world as close to the brink of nuclear annihilation as it has ever been, politicians, bureaucrats, policy wonks, and journalists have been speaking as though Trump were engaged in actual negotiations with Kim Jong Un. Some deliriously joined him in contemplating the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize. The voices of a few experts who dared say that nothing had been accomplished yet and expressed doubt that the summit would actually occur were quickly drowned out. The ritual of analysis and anticipation that normally accrues to diplomacy was accruing instead to Trump’s flailing gestures, in the same way that the normal rituals of punditry have accrued to Trump’s tweets, harangues, and inconsistencies, all of which are the opposite of politics. On Friday, the Times’ morning podcast, “The Daily,” offered up a thoughtful analysis of Trump’s summit-cancelling missive, which was written in the language of a sulking, lovelorn seventh grader. But no sooner was the podcast posted than Trump told the media that he might hold the summit after all.

We are losing the habit, and perhaps the capability, of distinguishing reality from vacuum. This is disorienting in the present and disastrous for the future—it is the one factor that will make post-Trumpian recovery, when it comes, so difficult. We must pose a bigger question than whether Administration members or congressional Republicans should stay or go, for it’s not only Trump’s appointees or fellow party members who are implicated in the daily insults and damage to our perceptions. We should be asking what each one of us can do to assert a fact-based reality at any given time. The great French thinker and activist Simone Weil had a prescription that she wrote down in her journal in 1933: “Never react to an evil in such a way as to augment it.” A few days later, she added, “Refuse to be an accomplice. Don’t lie—don’t keep your eyes shut.”

Throughout the twentieth century, writers and thinkers who faced reality-destroying regimes kept producing similar recipes. “Live not by lies,” the Russian dissident novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote. The Czech dissident playwright and future President Václav Havel pondered the predicament of living, unquestioningly, “inside the lie”—and the uncanny power of stepping outside of it. In our case, stepping outside the lie means refusing—stubbornly, consistently, incrementally—to lend credence to the opposite of politics, the opposite of diplomacy, and the opposite of sanity. That would require thinking, reading, and speaking critically: not treating an outburst as though it were politics, a tantrum as though it were diplomacy, and a delusion as though it were aspiration. The good news is that this is not an entirely impossible task.

BESS LEVIN @ VANITY FAIR: SPLITSVILLE – RUDY PARTS COMPANY WITH GREENBERG TRAUIG – “In his short time representing Trump, he’s made a name for himself as one of the worst lawyers of all time, so comically bad that even Donald Trump, Mr. Incompetent, can’t believe what a terrible job he’s doing. Those sorts of reviews are typically seen as a negative for companies advertising their legal services.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/rudy-giuliani-greenberg-traurig-resignation?mbid=nl_th_5af4c66c5650d54955bc0586&CNDID=48297443&spMailingID=13488304&spUserID=MjMzNDQ1MzU1ODE2S0&spJobID=1400981072&spReportId=MTQwMDk4MTA3MgS2

Rudy’s Ex-Law Boss: Please Stop Implicating Us In Your Crimes

Giuliani and his former employer apparently don’t see eye-to-eye on the subject of hush money.

Bess LevinMay 10, 2018 5:45 pm

Thinking about what he’s done, or not.By Mike Segar/Reuters.

When Lexington Avenue lothario Rudy Giuliani declared last month that he would be joining Donald Trump’s august legal team, he said that he would only be taking a “leave of absence” from his law firm, Greenberg Traurig, because it’d take just a week, two weeks tops, to resolve the Mueller investigation. On Thursday, though, the law firm announced that the leave of absence has, sadly, become permanent, with Giuliani tendering a “resignation” letter on Wednesday. “After recognizing that this work is all consuming and is lasting longer than initially anticipated, Rudy has determined it is best for him to resign,” the firm’s chairman, Richard A. Rosenbaum, said in a statement. So that’s the party line. More likely, as others have speculated, “America’s Mayor” was told he had 24 hours to cough up a letter announcing his departure, or the firm would cough it up for him.

Greenberg Traurig might have seen this one coming. For starters, any lawyer worth their salt could have told Giuliani that defending the president of the United States in an investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power couldn’t be a side hustle. Second, no one outside of Giuliani actually thought that the Mueller case was going to wrap up in two weeks, or even a month. Perhaps Giuliani’s former bosses would even have granted him a sabbatical, and then allowed him back, if the words coming out of his mouth since joining Team Trump hadn’t become so thoroughly mortifying by association. While Giuliani has said a number of cringe-worthy things since joining Trump’s legal team—that he fantasizes about riding to Ivanka Trump’srescue; that it would have been really bad if the Stormy Daniels story got out a month before the election, etc.—perhaps the most embarrassing was his appearance on Sean Hannity, wherein he implied any lawyer worth his salt has pulled a Michael Cohen.

At his law firm, the sentient denture suggested, such payments porn-star payouts were standard practice. “That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds,” Giuliani said. Cohen, he added, “would take care of things like this like I take care of this with my clients.” You can see how Greenberg Traurig might have come to the conclusion that Giuliani was not the ideal advertisement for the firm.

Indeed, according to The New York Times, they were not pleased at all. “Firm partners . . . chafed over Mr. Giuliani’s public comments about [the] payments,” write reporters Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman. They were particularly displeased by the implication, which Giuliani spake as gospel, that it’s perfectly normal for a lawyer to secretly take the initiative to silence the porn stars who say they banged their clients. At least not without informing their client first. “We cannot speak for Mr. Giuliani with respect to what was intended by his remarks,” Jill Perry, a spokesperson for the firm, told the paper. “Speaking for ourselves, we would not condone payments of the nature alleged to have been made or otherwise without the knowledge and direction of a client.”

Also likely playing into Greenberg Traurig’s decision to happily part ways with ole Rudy? The fact that in his short time representing Trump, he’s made a name for himself as one of the worst lawyers of all time, so comically bad that even Donald Trump, Mr. Incompetent, can’t believe what a terrible job he’s doing. Those sorts of reviews are typically seen as a negative for companies advertising their legal services.

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.

Pharma giant: In retrospect, we probably should not have agreed to pay the president’s “fixer” $1.2 million for dubious consulting work

Novartis AG “made a mistake” in striking a deal with Michael Cohen through his shell company, Essential Consultants, for guidance “as to how the Trump administration might approach certain U.S. healthcare-policy matters,” the firm’s C.E.O. toldemployees an e-mail today. “As a consequence, [we] are being criticized by a world that expects more from us.” Vasant Narasimhan did not say if the mistake specifically was agreeing to pay someone $1.2 million before holding a single meeting with him, or if the whole thing in general was one giant mistake, but presumably it’s the latter.

************************************

Hit the above link to read the rest of “The Levin Report.”

You heard it months ago at “Courtside.” I said that Stormy D was smarter, more credible, more decent, and probably a better overall self-promoter than “Don the Con” and predicted that her lawyers would run circles around the 21st Century version of “The Three Stooges” hired by him.

To date, nothing to show I was wrong. Actually, I think I underestimated the incompetence of the Trump Legal Team. But, when everything the client says is a lie, and he can’t keep them straight, it’s hard for those around him to figure out which lies are part of the “party line” and which are . . . well, just plain old lies.

PWS

05-13-18

GONZO’S WORLD: TRAVESTY AT JUSTICE: HOW SESSIONS’S DISINGENUOUS WHITE NATIONALIST AGENDA DEGRADES THE MEMORY OF AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER W.E.B. DU BOIS – “It is often said that elections have consequences. Distorting history, though, and the contributions of past scholars is not a political consequence but rather degrades our intellectual tradition.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/jeff-sessions-is-shamefully-undermining-web-du-boiss-legacy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Marc Mauer writes in The Guardian:

Since 2002, the US Department of Justice’s WEB Du Bois program has sponsored research fellowships on issues of race and criminal justice. During Republican and Democratic administrations, a diverse group of academics have carried the spirit of the noted sociologist and civil rights leader to the race challenges of the 21st century. Given the racial disparity endemic at every stage of the justice system the DoJ’s investigation of these issues has been praiseworthy.

But with Jeff Sessions as attorney general exploring the roots of this injustice may now be compromised. In the recently released solicitation for the Du Bois fellowships the DoJ invited scholars to engage in research on five issues arising out of the “tough on crime” era that would make a student of the Du Bois legacy shudder.

Whereas Du Bois is widely known for promoting the idea that “the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line”, the DoJ solicitation displays no interest in such high-profile issues as police killings of unarmed black men or the impact of mass incarceration on the African American community. Instead, “protecting police officers” is the only area of law enforcement prioritized by the DoJ.

Another research priority, “enhancing immigration enforcement”, coming at a moment when barely disguised racist imagery accompanies those policies, seems particularly jarring when upheld in the name of a civil rights legend.

The DoJ approach to research is unfortunately consistent with the misconstrued “law and order” agenda that Jeff Sessions has brought to his leadership. Within a month of taking office Sessions had rescinded the Obama-era decision to phase out federal contracting with private prisons. That initiative had been based in part on an inspector general’s finding that such prisons had higher levels of assault and safety concerns than public prisons.

Sessions overturned a policy adopted by his predecessor Eric Holder that urged federal prosecutors to use their discretion to avoid bringing drug charges that would carry a mandatory minimum sentence if the facts of the case suggested that the defendant had little criminal history and was not a major player in the drug trade. A year after its implementation the number of such sentences had declined by 25%, with no adverse effects on drug law enforcement.

Sessions also has emerged as the primary political obstacle to the bipartisan sentencing reform movement on Capitol Hill

In contrast, Sessions now requires that federal prosecutors seek the most serious charge they can bring in every case. This policy is faulty on two counts. First, it fails to recognize that no two crimes or defendants are exactly alike, and that sentencing needs to be individualized. Second, the directive conflicts with the ethical standard for prosecutors to seek justice, not vengeance. In some cases, justice may represent a prison term, in others it may be placement in residential drug treatment.

Sessions also has emerged as the primary political obstacle to the bipartisan sentencing reform movement on Capitol Hill, and joined with President Trump’s barbaric call for the death penalty for drug sellers. At a moment when Americans increasingly recognize that treatment is more effective than punishment for addressing addiction, such a dehumanizing message will only inflame the public debate in unproductive ways.

Perhaps most unsettling about the Du Bois initiative and the thrust of current policy is its disconnect from evidence and the current realities of crime and justice. Certainly law enforcement officers need to be protected as they do their jobs, but so do communities of color when they are harmed by racist policing. Suggesting that we need to enhance immigration enforcement at a time when this is already at record levels fails to engage in the vitally needed conversation about how to develop immigration policy that offers refuge to those fleeing violence and enhances cross-border economic opportunity and family stability.

It is often said that elections have consequences. Distorting history, though, and the contributions of past scholars is not a political consequence but rather degrades our intellectual tradition.

Marc Mauer is the executive director of The Sentencing Project and the author of Race to Incarcerate

************************************

Sessions is and always has been a racist. That he has now shifted most of his intellectual dishonesty, intentionally racially inflammatory rhetoric, and false narratives to attacking Hispanics, immigrants, and gays, rather than concentrating on demeaning African-Americans, doesn’t change anything.

About the best that can be said for “Gonzo” is that he’s an “equal opportunity racist.” That he has risen to the position of Attorney General while espousing his White Nationalist views is a continuing stain on America and our national values. It’s also something for which the GOP must be held accountable once they finally lose their ultimately doomed quest to “Keep America White.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others were right about Sessions. That they were ignored and rudely “tuned out” by their GOP colleagues is an ongoing national disgrace.

PWS

04-29-18

HERESY IN THE HOUSE?: DID RYAN AX CHAPLAIN FOLLOWING UNWELCOME REMINDER THAT “THE POOR ARE CHILDREN OF GOD?” – Is He Seeking WASP Male Evangelical Replacement Qualified To Minister To Needs Of House GOP Kleptocracy!👹👹👹

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/paul-ryan-patrick-conroy?mbid=nl_th_5ae255955bf9e03bdb5e6fd3&CNDID=48297443&spMailingID=13395516&spUserID=MjMzNDQ1MzU1ODE2S0&spJobID=1382357241&spReportId=MTM4MjM1NzI0MQS2

Bess Levin writes in Vanity Fair:

Levin Report

DID PAUL RYAN FIRE THE HOUSE CHAPLAIN FOR TAX-CUT BLASPHEMY?

It sure seems like something he’d do.

BY

BESS LEVIN

APRIL 26, 2018 6:27 PM

“I don’t care who you are, you bite your god damn tongue!”

By Alex Edelman/Getty Images.

The December 2017 passage of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” was thrilling to a great many people, among them Donald Trump, corporate America, and the uber-rich, whom the legislation was structured to disproportionately benefit. But in truth, the day belonged to one man: CrossFit devoteeand Eddie Munster doppelgängerPaul Ryan, who had fantasized about redistributing wealth to those at the top since his boyhood days in Wisconsin, devoted his entire career to making it happen, and promptly announced his retirement when it became clear that his other lifelong dream—dismantling the social safety net and cutting off the lazy takers—wasn’t going to happen ’til at least 2021. So we imagine it must have really frosted Ryan’s cookies when, in the midst of many a late night and early morning on the Hill devoted to dragging this sucker across the finish line, Reverend Patrick Conroy, the House chaplain since 2011, had the stones to include these outrageous lines in one of his prayers:

“God of the universe, we give You thanks for giving us another day. Bless the Members of this assembly as they set upon the work of these hours, of these days. . . . As legislation on taxes continues to be debated this week and next, may all Members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great Nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle. May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

Ryan, one assumes, had never heard such sacrilegious words from a man of the cloth and was probably of a mind to drag Conroy out of the room by his collar and throw him out on the Capitol steps then and there. But because he is a disciplined lawmaker whose Holy Grail was so close he could taste it, he stayed focused and decided to deal with the blasphemy at a later time. And apparently that time came earlier this month, per The Hill:

House Chaplain Patrick Conroy’s sudden resignation has sparked a furor on Capitol Hill, with sources in both parties saying he was pushed out by Speaker Paul Ryan. Conroy’s own resignation announcement stated that it was done at Ryan’s request.

“As you have requested, I hereby offer my resignation as the 60th Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives,” the April 15 letter to Ryan, obtained by The Hill, states.

While one source claimed that “some of the more conservative evangelical Republicans didn’t like that the Father had invited a Muslim person to give the opening prayer,” others offered a more compelling reason: Ryan “took issue with a prayer on the House floor that could have been perceived as being critical of the G.O.P. tax cut bill.” According to a Democratic aide, Conroy’s ouster was “largely driven by [the] speech on the tax bill that the speaker didn’t like.” The New York Times notes that a week after his sermon, a staffer from Ryan’s office told Conroy “We are upset with this prayer; you are getting too political,” and that the next time he saw the Reverend in person, Ryan told him “Padre, you just got to stay out of politics.” AshLee Strong, a spokesperson for the speaker, declined to explain the personnel decision, noting only Minority Leader Nancy Pelosiand her office “were fully read in and did not object.”

Now, could Ryan have forced the guy to resign for completely legitimate reasons? Sure! But it also seems entirely plausible that this is exactly the sort of thing that would constitute a bridge too far in his book. Stand up for neo-Nazis? Water off a duck’s back. But suggest that a $1.5 trillion tax cut should help all Americans and not just the already-rich? That’s obviously a (potentially!) fireable offense right there. And don’t bother saying sorry after the fact to Ryan, Reverend. Say sorry to God. As a major corporate shareholder and beneficiary of the legislation, you’re in the doghouse with him, too.

*************************************

Read the rest of the “Levin Report” at the link!

Obviously, it takes a very special type of pastor to provide spiritual counseling to a bunch of guys who have devoted their entire careers to taking from the underprivileged and giving to the over-privileged. It also takes a very special kind of theological scholarship, since almost all of Christian theology suggests that exactly the opposite is required and that greed, promoting inequality, and abusing the less fortunate are actually sins that could have serious repercussions in eternal life.

These dudes have to face the very real chance that they will pass into an another world where those whom they have dispossessed, mistreated, mocked, dumped on, and scorned in life will be the “honored ones” and the GOP lifetime grifters will be at their mercy. The day of reckoning for today’s GOP and their evangelical backers could get ugly — they almost have to hope that there is no God, or if there is, that She is not a “Just God” or they will have “Hell to Pay” so to speak! No wonder they are in need of serious spiritual help!

Ryan apparently had to act quickly to scotch the blasphemous rumors floating around the Hill: JESUS WASN’T REALLY A RICH WASP. HE WASN’T EVEN A CHRISTIAN, AND HE DIDN’T BELONG TO ANY CHURCH AT ALL. HE SUPPOSEDLY TURNED FISH INTO LOAVES OF BREAD AND DIDN’T EVEN DENY BREAD (let alone cake) TO THE LGBTQ GUYS IN THE CROWD!

Some misguided souls are even claiming that ”our very own” Jesus Christ actually was an indigent swarthy Palestinian disgruntled Jew who led a ragtag band of vagrants — some of whom had quit gainful employment and abandoned their families — around Palestine undermining legal authority, failing to respect THE LAW, and spreading seditious lies like “The meek shall inherit the earth,” “Blessed are the poor,” and “Fat Cats riding camels will never make it through the eye of a needle or pass through the gates of Heaven!” They were “takers” — non-self-supporting, non-contributors to the community, and lived on handouts and public charity!

Some apparently have the audacity to claim that Jesus spoke of a “spiritual kingdom” unrelated to material possessions and tax breaks where rich White Guys would be judged equally with everyone else. Shucks, what’s the purpose of being rich & White if it won’t even buy you preferential treatment? Heck, even a poor guy who wasn’t a lobbyist would have direct access to Mick Mulvaney under that scenario!

This obviously false Prophet reputedly was so poor that he couldn’t afford a lawyer for his trial, not even Rudy Guiliani. He tried to represent himself, and the result was pretty ugly.

False news, false news, false news! Gotta find a true minister who preaches the gospel according to Fox & Friends!

PWS

04-28-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

First, he trashed the 1stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;

Third, while half-heartedly saying he would be willing to work with House Democrats, he then threatened them with retaliation if they had the audacity to exercise their Constitutional authority to investigate him and his corrupt Administration;

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

PWS

11-06-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Sessions’s White-Nationalist driven lies and false narratives about refugees are described above. For the truth about refugees and immigrants and all of the great things they have done and continue to do for our country, see my recent post at https://wp.me/p8eeJm-313.

Due Process Forever — Jeff Sessions Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Rudy’s Ex-Law Boss: Please Stop Implicating Us In Your Crimes

Giuliani and his former employer apparently don’t see eye-to-eye on the subject of hush money.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

First, he trashed the 1^stAmendment by attacking, insulting, demeaning, and revoking the White Press credentials of CNN Correspondent Jim Acosta while fabricating an alleged “incident” involving Acosta that both national TV recordings and dozens of eye-witnesses testify never happened;