Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents - Trump Admits He's A Criminal

In a stunning admission, the resident told ABC News that he has no problem accepting dirt on a political opponent from a foreign power. In fact, Trump denied that foreign help should even be considered election interference.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos for ABC News, Donald Trump said that he would take information from a foreign country if he felt that it could help his campaign and that no one in their right minds would contact the FBI. He contradicted himself multiple times in the short interview, but the bottom line is that he’s now willing to admit that he’d absolutely accept illegal foreign help for his campaigns. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.



Donald Trump is a menace and it seems Republicans don't care and Democrats lack the fortitude to stop him. He told George Stephanopoulos that, not only is the FBI Director WRONG, but that if he's approached by a foreign operative with dirt on an opponent, he would take the meeting and the information they have to offer!







resident Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners - such as China or Russia - or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, "I think maybe you do both."

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian

 Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-trump-says-he-would-listen-if-foreigners-offered-dirt-on-opponents/ar-AACMWHP

Friday, February 22, 2019

Keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns

The New Jersey state Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill that would keep presidential candidates off the state’s 2020 ballot unless they release their tax returns.

According to the Courier Post, the Democratic-controlled state Senate passed the measure along party lines in a 23-11 vote on Thursday, sending the bill to the Assembly committee and full legislature for a vote before it heads to the desk of Gov. Phil Murphy (D) for consideration.

The controversial measure would deny candidates for President and Vice President a spot on the state ballot if they do not publicly release five of their most recent tax returns at least 50 days before the general election in 2020.

The bill, if passed, would also bar the state’s electors from voting for candidates for President and Vice President as part of the Electoral College system if they choose not to comply with the legislation.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/431062-new-jersey-senate-passes-bill-that-would-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Why Is Tyson Foods STILL Supporting Steve King? #BoycottTyson

Jesse Dollemore discusses the campaign contributions and support given to Iowa Congressman Steve King from Tyson Foods.

You have a choice when shopping for your holiday meals, now you have the information to make an informed decision on what NOT TO BUY!

 #SteveKing #TysonFoods #Thanksgiving


Thursday, November 15, 2018

Rep. Mia Love, trailing in her race, sues to stop vote count


By Felicia Sonmez | Washington Post

Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, is filing a lawsuit against the Salt Lake County Clerk in a bid to stop the counting of votes until her campaign is allowed to challenge whether signatures on ballot envelopes match those on file, a move that Love’s Democratic opponent said Wednesday “smacks of desperation.”

Love is trailing Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, D, by about 1,200 votes, or a little more than half a percentage point, in the race in Utah’s 4th Congressional District. That margin is narrower than the 6,700 votes by which McAdams was leading Nov. 8. Utah law allows candidates to request a recount when the margin of victory is 0.25 percentage point or less.

In the lawsuit, news of which was first reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, Love’s campaign argues that the Salt Lake County Clerk has allowed poll monitors to observe the ballot-counting process but has denied them the ability to challenge signatures on ballot envelopes.

Voting by mail is popular in Utah; in the state’s primary elections earlier this year, 90 percent of ballots were cast by mail.

The lawsuit states that Love and her campaign “do not anticipate a large number of challenges” but claims that poll monitors “have observed myriad instances where a county worker verified a signature on a ballot envelope that did not appear to match the signature on file with the County.”

The Salt Lake County Clerk’s office did not respond to a request for comment. County clerks have until Nov. 20 to finish counting ballots, and the state’s election results are set to be finalized on Nov. 26.

In a tweet Wednesday afternoon, McAdams denounced Love’s move, saying “Utah voters deserve better than this.” He took aim at the fact that Love’s lawsuit targets Salt Lake County, McAdams’ home base.

“It is the job of election officials to decide what votes count, not political candidates,” McAdams said. “Rep. Love’s decision to sue only in [Salt Lake County] as she continues to trail in this race is unfortunate and smacks of desperation.”

Robert Harrington, the attorney representing Love, said in a statement that the campaign is “not accusing anyone of anything” but submitted the petition with the goal of improving the election process.

“We have great respect for the critical and at times, complex, ballot counting process,” Harrington said. “As we’ve spent hours observing these efforts, we’ve found a few instances where increased transparency and scrutiny are needed.”

The race is one of a handful across the country that remain unresolved more than a week after Election Day. Others include Florida’s Senate and gubernatorial contests as well as the race for the Georgia governor’s mansion.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Will Susan Collins sacrifice what's left of her dignity for Trump's Supreme Court nominee?

By Joan McCarter
President Donald Trump, center, speaks as he meets with Republican senators on health care in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, June 27, 2017. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, left, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, right, listen (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Don't forget who you're doing this for, Senator.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is apparently so afraid of getting a primary challenge from the right in 2020 that she's willing to lose all of the moderates, the independents, and the Democratic women who have supported her in the past. In order to save her own career, she's seemingly willing to sell out generations of women, of people of color, of LGBTQ people with a vote to put a young, hyper-partisan extremist Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. How far right has she swung? She's giving exclusive interviews to outlets like Newsmax, which hosts a white supremacist radio show host on it's multimedia channel.

That interview, by the way, is so that she can blow off the efforts of two political action committees in her state—the Maine People’s Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership—who've teamed up with healthcare activist Ady Barkan to crowdfund a warchest for her 2020 Democratic opponent, whoever that might be. Collins and her press secretary sniff that this is just like bribery and she is so far above that that it won't make any difference and that she will "will make up her mind based on the merits of the nomination."

Which is utterly laughable. On the merits, this guy has lied to the Senate. This one got glossed over with the stolen emails and everything else, but in a confirmation hearing in 2004 he actually told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) that "my background has not been in partisan politics." This is the guy who almost single-handedly created the Vince Foster was murdered by Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory when he was working for Ken Starr, and who "argued internally for the most-intrusive possible investigation and questioning of President Clinton vis-a-vis the Lewinsky affair, and adopted a maximal view of Clinton's legal liability and vulnerability to impeachment." He was part of George W. Bush's legal team that bullied Bush into the White House in Bush v. Gore. When Republicans decided to politicize the most horrible thing one man had ever endured—Michael Schiavo's decision to remove his brain dead wife Teri's life support—Kavanaugh woke Bush up in the middle of the night to intervene by signing "emergency" legislation.

He even lied to the Senate about being a partisan. It's a stain on the Senate that they let him get away with it then, in 2004 when he was Bush's right-hand man. And caught red-handed this time around as having trafficked in stolen documents in order to advance Bush's partisan agenda, Kavanaugh didn't even have the decency to apologize to Sens. Durbin and Patrick Leahy whose emails were pilfered, or to the committee for having misled them in the past.

It's a testament to just how unprincipled Collins has become, how desperate to hold on to her Senate seat, that she is willing to sacrifice everything up to and including her own dignity for Donald Trump.

As if she's not going to get a challenge from the right in 2020 anyway.

The people of Maine need to call her on it. Directly. Every day. At her office numbers: (207) 622-8414, (207) 945-0417, (207) 283-1101, (207) 493-7873, (207) 784-6969, (207) 780-3575, (202) 224-2523. And since she's ignoring calls, she needs to see them in person.

Do you live in Maine? You have a powerful voice in stopping Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Click here to write Sen. Collins.

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Obama vs. Trump: The clash everyone's waited for arrives

But on Friday, at least, the current resident barely mustered a response to the blistering critique leveled against him by his predecessor.


URBANA, Ill. — Barack Obama went hard. Donald Trump hardly responded.

Friday was the day Republicans and Democrats and pretty much every reporter and political obsessive have been dreaming of — the two who couldn’t be more different, who are both the throbbing hearts of their own bases and the nightmare of the others’ — going head to head.

Six weeks before the midterms that are existential for both of their visions of the future, Obama unleashed for the first time with an indictment of Trump and Republicans that stopped just short of calling them traitors to the American ideal. Trump, who’s been swiping at Obama on Twitter and other appearances almost every chance he gets and months ago said Democrats who didn’t clap for his state of the union address had committed treason, made a joke about sleeping through it. A few hours later, he congratulated himself for the joke.

“That seems to be the quote of the day, by the way, which I sort of figured," Trump told donors in South Dakota.

Obama delivered some choice quotes of his own during his speech at the University of Illinois. “How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad?” he asked. Later, he called Trump’s Twitter feed “electronic versions of bread and circuses.”

People close to Trump say he has long complained about the fawning coverage and adulation that he believes Obama has received, even after leaving the White House. The dynamic has only bolstered his deep-seated belief that he’ll never be treated fairly or given credit in establishment Washington.

But Trump also sees Obama as a much more formidable political opponent than Hillary Clinton, the one he actually beat, and Trump’s allies have privately worried that the 44th president could get in his successor’s head. Obama, while publicly dismissive of Trump, has been vexed by Trump for years, from the lies about his birth certificate, to the deliberate attempts to undo his signature achievements, to worries about how much he's responsible for the backlash that helped Trump get elected.

To Obama, Democratic and Republican voters need to band together to overlook their differences and stand up for America against Trump and complicit elected Republicans. To Trump, voters need to see Democrats in office as a threat to America because they won’t work with him.

Where Obama appealed to civic duty and common decency, Trump focused on the hard-line planks of his agenda.

“We have to be tough,” Trump said.

Obama leaned back from the podium at one point and marveled about how every country in the world has signed on to the Paris climate accords, except America, because Trump pulled back from the international agreement. Trump bashed NATO, the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and all the other international norms that Obama holds dear.

Trump flew to North Dakota and South Dakota, where his party is strongest, and gave another pair of speeches bragging about his record, talked briefly about the candidates he was there to support and brought them onto the stage.

Obama flew to central Illinois, spoke about American history and what the country is supposed to stand for, then walked into a local coffee shop and introduced his candidate one by one to the voters surprised to see them there.

Obama aides were giddy to be back out, watching him give the speech that they have also been waiting for. They were all smiles as he stopped by a café afterward for a campaign stop with gubernatorial candidate J.B. Pritzker, where Obama made a show of ordering tiramisu and telling people there that he couldn’t take selfies with all of them.

Asked what they had to say about Obama’s attacks on Trump — coming at the end of head-exploding week in the middle of the darkest period of his residency so far — multiple Trump White House aides and people close to him said they didn’t want to get into it, letting the resident’s words speak for themselves.

Democrats have been flooding Obama’s office with requests for him to come see them.

Republicans, outside of the reddest states — which notably, include several of those where Democratic incumbents are scrambling to hold on — have been ducking questions on Trump for the entire year.

“You saw that Governor [Bruce] Rauner ran away from his resident. I’m thrilled that we had President Obama here,” said Pritzker, needling his incumbent Republican opponent after Obama had left the café.

Trump’s public schedule on Friday put him at a disadvantage in terms of hitting back at Obama. The resident had two speeches scheduled at fundraising events in North Dakota and South Dakota, but neither were in front of the massive crowds that reliably rev him up.

Still, “Isn’t this much more exciting than listening to President Obama?” Trump asked the crowd at his first event.

All three cable networks carried Obama’s speech live and in full, including Fox News, which is often blaring in the resident’s cabin on Air Force One, and replayed clips of Obama’s speech. CNN didn’t carry Trump’s remarks in North Dakota live, MSNBC cut away quickly and even Fox News went to commercial before the resident wrapped up. None of them carried Trump’s full speech in South Dakota later in the day.

Trump was speaking to wealthy donors at the fundraising receptions. Obama deliberately chose an auditorium full of students at the University of Illinois for his address.

Trump, at one point, acknowledged he was speaking to a largely affluent crowd, remarking that a coal mining executive he brought up on stage to praise his efforts to revive the coal industry was likely rich.

“I signed his hat,” Trump joked. “The guy’s probably loaded and I’m signing hats.”

Obama, walking around the café after his speech, asked one student, “How did you become interested in actuarial science?” When he heard another person was getting a PhD in rhetoric, Obama leaned in and waxed about “the impact of the digital world, because it lowers restraints and empathy.”

Trump riffed, as he always does. Obama spent the flight to Illinois fiddling with a pen on a printed-out copy of the speech, changing words and then changing them again.

Once it was done, Obama, per his custom, barely went off script — though he said he couldn’t help himself from a digression to take credit for the economy that Trump cites as his biggest success.

"Let’s just remember when this recovery started,” Obama said. “Suddenly Republicans are saying, 'It's a miracle!' I have to remind them that those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015, 2016."

Pushing back on that sensitive point was the only moment when Trump brought out a pre-written document. He produced four sheets of paper listing his accomplishments, running through them one-by-one in front of the crowd to argue that he’d been the one who salvaged the economy.

“Sometimes the backlash comes from people who are genuinely, if wrongly, fearful of change. More often it's manufactured by the powerful and the privileged who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep us cynical because that helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege,” Obama said at one point. “It did not start with Donald Trump. He is a symptom, not the cause.”

By the end of the day, Trump settled on this response to his predecessor's critique: "If that doesn't get you out to vote for the midterms, nothing will.”

But there’s always Twitter to say more.

Friday, August 31, 2018

Representative Eric Swalwell On GOP's List Of Trump Scandals: ‘They Know’

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell says the Republicans' list of potential Trump investigations concerns him because it shows "they know" that Donald Trump is facing legal exposure. Rep. Swalwell also reacts to the resident's new "impeachment" claims.





Friday, August 17, 2018

John O. Brennan: Resident Donald Trumps Increasing Erratic Behavior

John Brennan says that he believes the resident's increasingly erratic behavior is because special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation is closing in on the resident and people close to him. Mieke Eoyang, Ron Klain and Stuart Stevens join Lawrence.

Friday, August 10, 2018

Ted Cruz BEGS Trump For Help

Ted Cruz is America’s BIGGEST cuck. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Note To Democrats: Fuck The White Working Class

Posted By Rude One

I'm a very white person. My background is so European, it's painful: Russian, Polish, Swedish, and, in the only nod to a smidge of color, Italian. And myfamily history is pure worker: My father was a trucker. Mom was a secretary. My grandfather was an electrician and my grandmother worked in a factory. I tell you this to prove my bona fides when I say, with no due respect, it's time for Democrats and the left to say, "Fuck the white working class."

That doesn't mean neglect white workers. As I said back in November (and repeated in December), "The only way to help the white working class is to abandon the white working class when it comes to trying to get votes." It means that we concentrate on uplifting all people in this country, no matter the skin color, and we stop this bullshit outreach to the very white people who don't understand that it's good for them, too.

It's just pathetic that this keeps coming up again and again, as if Trump voters and the white working class are the only goddamn prize in the electorate. Democrats, we're told, and liberals, especially, have to, got to, must try to get them on board or our victories are hollow and our policies are meaningless.

Thomas Frank, a progressive darling for his books, including What's the Matter with Kansas? (the answer he didn't get around to is the obvious one: racism), asked in his column this weekend for The Guardian, "Can liberals please work out how to win back the working class?" It offers the usual stuff we know, that Democrats should embrace a genuinely liberal platform, that they blew it by not punishing Wall Street back in 2009, and that they embrace the wealthy in ways that alienate the left.

But what's missing is a recognition that the non-white working class is firmly with the Democratic Party. In fact, it's the base that has sustained the Democrats for several elections, and if the policies of the party are accepted by the non-white working class, then you're either saying that non-whites don't know that Democrats are bad for them or you're just fucking privileging white workers as being the only representatives of a class.

Fucking hell, not a single goddamn factory worker voted for Trump because they were sad Barack Obama didn't lock up someone from Goldman Sachs. They voted for him because he was gonna chase out the Mexicans and Muslims and he was gonna teach that Hillary bitch a lesson. It's not that fucking complicated. And it's fucked up that someone as genuinely smart as Frank can't just accept that.

Then, today, in the New York Times (motto: "We will keep publishing dumb shit until someone from West Virginia subscribes"), in one of the most tragically stupid columns I've ever fucking seen (and I've been reading this shit for years), ostensibly liberal writer Margaret Renkl offers advice on "How to Talk to a Racist," subtitled, "White liberals, you’re doing it all wrong." You might look at that and think, "Oh, c'mon. That's gotta be a joke."

Nope. Renkl wants us to reason with the unreasonable: "Somehow you need to find enough common ground for a real conversation about race. Very few people are stupid or irredeemably mean. They’ll listen to what you have to say if they trust you’ll listen to what they have to say back." Look at that shit. It's like she's talking about racists like they're particularly dumb dogs, not adult humans who could, if they wanted, try to find common ground with liberals.

It gets worse. You should, she says, stop and take a breath "when you encounter a person who believes he’s merely honoring his ancestors by driving a car with an image of the Confederate battle flag on the tag [or] when a Facebook friend announces that it’s disrespectful to take a knee during the national anthem." I'll take a breath if the exhale is me saying, "Racist asshole."

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Why is it just up to liberals? Unlike writers like Renkl, I'm not gonna act like racists are children. I'm gonna treat them like fuckin' grown-ups and not fuckin' patronize them and speak gently so they don't roll on the ground in a tantrum. I'm gonna tell 'em they're fuckin' racist and that racism is objectively wrong and they should be ashamed of their ignorant selves. And if they don't like being made to feel bad for being racist, don't fucking be racist. Now, tell me whatever stupid shit you wanna say about how you have black friends.

Democrats and the left need to get over this obsession with making the white working class happy. Reaching out to them only makes them hate us more. Why do we need them all? There is already a good percentage of them that do vote Democratic because they're also not all racist morons. Those white working class members are pretty sick of the idiots in their demographic, too.

Besides, it ain't like the white working class has a monopoly on rage or morality. Holy Republicans may hammer the Bible like it's their mistress's ass, but your evangelicals haven't got shit on the black church or the enormous growth of Hispanics as part of church congregations. Go get your voters there.

And the rise of women candidates, both non-white and white, as well as LGBT candidates, demonstrates that the future sure as hell ain't the white men that still make up the vast majority of Republican elected officials. The awesome thing about these new candidates is they are coming up with ways to present that liberal, pro-worker agenda as something that is simply common sense. That goes across the board, from Beto O'Rourke in Texas, a white Congressman who is uniting constituencies (mostly not white) in a real shot to take down Ted Cruz, to Jeannine Lee Lake in Indiana, a black woman who won the Democratic nomination in a district that once had Mike Pence representing it. The DNC and the DCCC better get the fuck on board or the party is gonna leave their old asses behind.

Just think: non-white Americans, with an assist from some white Americans, could end up being responsible for changing things to actually make shit better for the white working class. That many of them won't understand it, as they didn't when Barack Obama was getting them health care, is the triumph of the GOP politics of hate and fear and ignorance.

[Note: Yes, in very white places like West Virginia, where Democrats still have a chance, you might have to pander a bit, but the basic message doesn't need to change.]

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Michael Avenatti vs. Groper Trump in 2020?!!


Saturday, June 23, 2018

Vote against the GOP this November

By George Will

Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans — these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively — fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.

The principle: The congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them.

Consider the melancholy example of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), who wagered his dignity on the patently false proposition that it is possible to have sustained transactions with today’s president, this Vesuvius of mendacities, without being degraded. In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” Thomas More, having angered Henry VIII, is on trial for his life. When Richard Rich, whom More had once mentored, commits perjury against More in exchange for the office of attorney general for Wales, More says: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!” Ryan traded his political soul for . . . a tax cut. He who formerly spoke truths about the accelerating crisis of the entitlement system lost everything in the service of a resident pledged to preserve the unsustainable status quo.

Ryan and many other Republicans have become the resident’s poodles, not because James Madison’s system has failed but because today’s abject careerists have failed to be worthy of it. As explained in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” Congressional Republicans (congressional Democrats are equally supine toward Democratic presidents) have no higher ambition than to placate this president. By leaving dormant the powers inherent in their institution, they vitiate the Constitution’s vital principle: the separation of powers.

Recently Sen. Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is retiring , became an exception that illuminates the depressing rule. He proposed a measure by which Congress could retrieve a small portion of the policymaking power that it has, over many decades and under both parties, improvidently delegated to presidents. Congress has done this out of sloth and timidity — to duck hard work and risky choices. Corker’s measure would have required Congress to vote to approve any trade restrictions imposed in the name of “national security.” All Senate Republicans worthy of the conservative label that all Senate Republicans flaunt would privately admit that this is conducive to sound governance and true to the Constitution’s structure. But the Senate would not vote on it — would not allow it to become just the second amendment voted on this year .

This is because the amendment would have peeved the easily peeved resident. The Republican-controlled Congress, which waited for Trump to undo by unilateral decree the border folly they could have prevented by actually legislating, is an advertisement for the unimportance of Republican control.

The Trump whisperer regarding immigration is Stephen Miller, 32, whose ascent to eminence began when he became the Savonarola of Santa Monica High School . Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign official who fell from the king’s grace but is crawling back (he works for Vice President Pence’s political action committee), recently responded on Fox News to the story of a 10 year old girl with Down syndrome taken from her parents at the border. Lewandowski replied: “Wah, wah.” 

Meaningless noise is this administration’s appropriate libretto because, just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump attracts, and is attracted to, louts.

In today’s GOP, which is the resident’s plaything, he is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party’s cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation’s honor while quarantining him. A Democratic-controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate’s machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House. And to those who say, “But the judges, the judges!” the answer is: Article III institutions are not more important than those of Articles I and II combined.

Read more from George F. Will’s archive or follow him on Facebook.

Monday, June 18, 2018

When Did You Figure It Out?

By RfrancisR



CFC35EB2-31F8-426D-B4F3-07D4F9687070.jpeg
In a tweet, ABC News called Trump’s child concentration camps “shelters.”
 
When did you first realize that the Republican Party jumped the shark and began falling into a deep dark abyss of hostility to facts, reason, and empathy?

Was it when Nixon sent the National Guard to Kent State which resulted in that horrific massacre of anti-war protesters?  Maybe for some it was Nixon and Watergate?  Well, I get it. It would be fairly understandable to believe those were  just aberrations.

But why wasn’t it enough to come to that understanding when  Reagan decided to launch his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi the city where some of the most brutal civil rights killings took place, but not to memorialize the dead and and send a warning to the future, but to embrace concepts like “reverse racism,” which was clearly a dog whistle to the “I will tell you who the REAL racists are”?

OK, maybe coincidence? What about his nomination of a deeply racist man in Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship? Or the nomination of an equally racist man in Judge Bork to the Supreme Court who also called the Ninth amendment to the constitution an “irrelevant inkblot.”

No?

What about Reagan’s press secretary cracking jokes about gay men dying of AIDS during an official White House press conference?

What about Reagan’s cynical invention of the racist “welfare queen” stereotype of poor black women?

What about what remains one of the most hateful political conventions in history in the 1992 Republican Convention?

No? Just a few bad apples?

What about Bob Dole’s return of donations to the Log Cabin Republicans as to avoid offending his right wing base because he did not want to be seen as affiliating himself with LGBT who agreed with the Republican Party’s platform on all but one measure?

What about the subliminal confession of an absence of compassion for the suffering of others among the Republican faithful when George W Bush felt a need to coin the term “compassionate conservatism.”

No? What about when the Republican majority on Supreme Court decided to take the unprecedented step of reviewing state election law to shutdown attempts to have a proper recount in Florida?

No? Not then either?

What about when the Bush administration fabricated an excuse to go into a preemptive war in Iraq? What about Colin Powell’s fake vial of anthrax at the UN? What about Condi Rice’s mushroom cloud scare tactics to grow support for that illegal war? And it was an illegal war.

What about Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Water boarding? “Enhanced interrogation? No?

What about the cult of personality surrounding Sarah Palin who ran a smear campaign against Obama so awful that her own running mate had to refute her claims?

What about the threat of martial law in the USA if Congress did not give $800 billion to the big banks?

What about lies about “death panels?” What about “do not ask what good you could do?”

What about tea party activists waving guns at protests outside of events featuring Obama?

When did you figure it out? Was it when Republicans booed Rick Perry from uttering that very politically incorrect term “compassion” at a Republican debate? Did you figure it out then? Did you figure it out when mass shooting after mass shooting Republicans refused to act to protect the citizenry for the sake of the gun industry that lined their pockets?

What about the enthusiasm for Trump’s overt racism, xenophobia, islamaphobia?

If you just figured out the Republican Party is deep into an abyss of darkness, lies, mendacity, racism, and bigotry when they got to ripping babies from their mother’s arms, and refusing to give those children back to the mothers after immigration proceedings were over, you figured it out too late.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Mueller Has Dozens Of Inquiries For Trump In Broad Quest On Russia Ties And Obstruction




Robert S. Mueller III is said to be trying to determine whether the president had criminal intent when he fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director. Credit J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask resident Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

[Read the questions here.]

The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the resident’s thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. They deal chiefly with the resident’s high-profile firings of the F.B.I. director and his first national security adviser, his treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But they also touch on the resident’s businesses; any discussions with his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, about a Moscow real estate deal; whether the resident knew of any attempt by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel to Russia during the transition; any contacts he had with Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser who claimed to have inside information about Democratic email hackings; and what happened during Mr. Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr. Mueller’s investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago. The majority relate to possible obstruction of justice, demonstrating how an investigation into Russia’s election meddling grew to include an examination of the resident’s conduct in office. Among them are queries on any discussions Mr. Trump had about his attempts to fire Mr. Mueller himself and what the resident knew about possible pardon offers to Mr. Flynn.

“What efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the resident’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.

A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?” No such outreach has been revealed publicly.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The questions serve as a reminder of the chaotic first 15 months of the Trump residency and the transition and campaign before that. Mr. Mueller wanted to inquire about public threats the resident made, conflicting statements from Mr. Trump and White House aides, the resident’s private admissions to Russian officials, a secret meeting at an island resort, WikiLeaks, salacious accusations and dramatic congressional testimony.

The special counsel also sought information from the resident about his relationship with Russia. Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump whether he had any discussions during the campaign about any meetings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and whether he spoke to others about either American sanctions against Russia or meeting with Mr. Putin.

Through his questions, Mr. Mueller also tries to tease out Mr. Trump’s views on law enforcement officials and whether he sees them as independent investigators or people who should loyally protect him.

For example, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was fired, the White House said he broke with Justice Department policy and spoke publicly about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server. Mr. Mueller’s questions put that statement to the test. He wants to ask why, time and again, Mr. Trump expressed no concerns with whether Mr. Comey had abided by policy. Rather, in statements in private and on national television, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.

Many of the questions surround Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mr. Sessions, including the attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and whether Mr. Trump told Mr. Sessions he needed him in place for protection.

Mr. Mueller appears to be investigating how Mr. Trump took steps last year to fire Mr. Mueller himself. The resident relented after the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to resign, an episode that the special counsel wants to ask about.

“What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel in June of 2017?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to the list of questions. “What did you think and do in reaction to Jan. 25, 2018, story about the termination of the special counsel and Don McGahn backing you off the termination?” he planned to ask, referring to the Times article that broke the news of the confrontation.

Mr. Mueller has sought for months to question the resident, who has in turn expressed a desire, at times, to be interviewed, viewing it as an avenue to end the inquiry more quickly. His lawyers have been negotiating terms of an interview out of concern that their client — whose exaggerations, half-truths and outright falsehoods are well documented — could provide false statements or easily become distracted. Four people, including Mr. Flynn, have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry.

The list of questions grew out of those negotiations. In January, Mr. Trump’s lawyers gave Mr. Mueller several pages of written explanations about the resident’s role in the matters the special counsel is investigating. Concerned about putting the resident in legal jeopardy, his lead lawyer, John Dowd, was trying to convince Mr. Mueller he did not need to interview Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Mueller was apparently unsatisfied. He told Mr. Dowd in early March that he needed to question the resident directly to determine whether he had criminal intent when he fired Mr. Comey, the people said.

But Mr. Dowd held firm, and investigators for Mr. Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr. Dowd the questions they wanted to ask Mr. Trump.

When Mr. Mueller’s team relayed the questions, their tone and detailed nature cemented Mr. Dowd’s view that the resident should not sit for an interview. Despite Mr. Dowd’s misgivings, Mr. Trump remained firm in his insistence that he meet with Mr. Mueller. About a week and a half after receiving the questions, Mr. Dowd resigned, concluding that his client was ignoring his advice.

Mr. Trump’s new lawyer in the investigation and his longtime confidant, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with Mr. Mueller last week and said he was trying to determine whether the special counsel and his staff were going to be “truly objective.”

Mr. Mueller’s endgame remains a mystery, even if he determines the resident broke the law. A longstanding Justice Department legal finding says residents cannot be charged with a crime while they are in office. The special counsel told Mr. Dowd in March that though the resident’s conduct is under scrutiny, he is not a target of the investigation, meaning Mr. Mueller does not expect to charge him.

The prospect of pardons is also among Mr. Mueller’s inquiries, and whether Mr. Trump offered them to a pair of former top aides to influence their decisions about whether to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Dowd broached the idea with lawyers for both of the advisers, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Manafort has pleaded not guilty on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes related to his work for the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who was ousted from the White House in February 2017 amid revelations about contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States, ultimately pleaded guilty last December to lying to federal authorities and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel.

“After General Flynn resigned, what calls or efforts were made by people associated with you to reach out to General Flynn or to discuss Flynn seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Paul Ryan Is The Worst House Speaker Ever

Lawrence O'Donnell argues Paul Ryan earned that title through unprecedented and unrelenting cowardice and by surrendering his powers to the Trump residency.