Showing posts with label Stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stupidity. Show all posts

Friday, July 7, 2017

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Chris Christie’s Tutorial In Hubris

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams pleads guilty in his federal corruption trial


Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams abruptly pleaded guilty Thursday, nearly two weeks into a federal bribery trial that dragged embarrassing details about his messy personal life and financial struggles out into open court.

Williams will resign as the city’s top prosecutor as part of a deal under which he pleaded guilty to one count related to accepting a bribe from Bucks County businessman Mohammad Ali.

Asked by U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond whether he intended to follow through with his resignation, Williams choked up and answered, “humbly, sincerely and effective immediately.”

Diamond said he wanted Williams’ resignation letter couriered to Mayor Kenny’s office as soon as the hearing was over.

Williams remained somber looking throughout the guilty plea hearing.

“I’m just very sorry for all of this, your honor,” he said.

At a followup hearing to determine whether Williams should be jailed immediately, defense attorney Thomas F. Burke argued the disgraced prosecutor was not a flight risk.

“He has no means as the court can see to go anywhere. He has no support. He’s deeply in debt and he doesn’t even have a car,” Burke said.

Taking the witness stand to plead with a judge not to send him directly to prison before sentencing, tears welled up in Williams’ eyes while discussing his daughters.

He acknowledged he was broke, saying he had “probably about $150 to $200” in his bank account.

In addition to accepting that he could face a maximum 5 year term when he is sentenced Oct. 24, Williams agreed to forfeit $64,878.22

While the 28 remaining counts against Williams were dismissed, he “admits that he committed all of the conduct in those 29 counts,”  Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Zauzmer said.

“Williams took benefits repeatedly from Mr. Ali knowing that those benefits were offered – at least in part – to influence him to take official actions,”  said Zauzmer.

Williams notified prosecutors he wanted to take the plea deal at 1 a.m.Thursday, said Zauzmer.

Sources close to the case say the deal is similar to one Williams was offered – and turned down – one day before his indictment earlier this year on 29 corruption-related counts including bribery, extortion and honest services fraud.

Prior to his admission, prosecutors and Williams’ defense lawyers – Thomas F. Burke and Trevan Borum – spent more than an hour huddled in quiet conversation in the courtroom, while the district attorney was nowhere to be seen.

His decision came after weeks of damaging testimony in which government witnesses characterized him a shameless beggar who repeatedly turned to the money of others to fund a lifestyle he couldn’t afford.

Two wealthy businessmen testified that they had showered the district attorney with gifts of all-expenses-paid travel, luxury goods and even cash in anticipation of the legal favors they might need from him.

And prosecutors had alleged that Williams delivered for them – writing letters to throw his weight into their legal problems and promising in one instance to intervene in a drug case brought by his office.

Additionally, Williams was accused of misspending thousands of dollars from his campaign fund on memberships to exclusive Philadelphia social clubs, misusing city vehicles as if they were his own and misappropriating money intended to fund his mother’s nursing home care.

Read a recap of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams’ trial with our day-by-day updates and learn more with our explainer on everything you need to know about the case.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Screw You

By rpannier

Yes, SCREW YOU! F@CK YOU! And EVERYTHING ELSE YOU
I swear the next sob story I hear about some jackass who voted for il douchebag whining and crying about how they feel betrayed by the Clown Prince of Idiocracy I'm going find them and hurl a bushel full of rotted apples at their stupid, whining, jerk face.

I have no sympathy, NONE, for the vast majority of the denizens of the political wasteland who want us to feel their pain because their fucking job went to Canada, or Mexico, or China, or was just fucking closed so some vulture capitalist pig whom you admire so much for their grit and monetary know-how can buy that new ivory covered back scratcher (my obligatory Simpsonism)

Guess what, oh Servant of the Lord of the Dung, you got took and I don't give a damn.

You voted not just for the Grifter-in-Chief, but then you turned around and voted for his Merry Band of Criminals. Yeah! I'm looking at YOU Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. You who re-elected the odious Republikkan senator from your state for some reason that only someone with several advanced degrees in Behavioral Science focusing specifically on the Stupid, the Lame, the Ignorant, the Bat Shit Moron could possibly hope to comprehend.

Screw you, oh Joe Six-Pack and Sally Housecoat (Another Simpsonism) who are getting on TV and singing your sad tale of how Carrier is really, actually sending the jobs you held elsewhere... and YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. I mean, "HE TOLD US THOSE JOBS WERE SAVED!"
So some (probably most) of you vague-witted harlequins happily tossed away your vote on a man whose whole history has been one of, and get this, 'NOT GIVING A FUCK ABOUT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF!' A simple ixquick (shameless plug), google or whatever search engine you use, would have shown you this.
But, Nooooooooooooo!!! Now, we're treated to seeing a half dozen of you Swamp Creature rejects on TV telling us how betrayed you feel. The funny part is... You really look surprised.
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll... screw you! Screw the person who was standing to your left and to your right. Screw everyone who worked at Carrier who voted for Trump.
My sympathies lie with those of you who didn't vote for the Swinish Lout that presently claims the title of President.
They deserve our sympathies.
But here's the thing, you won't see them on TV all glazy eyed, drooling, shaking their heads, saying, "I...I just don't get it."
That's probably why they don't get interviewed. They ought to send a reporter to your town and do a segment on every Carrier employee who voted Clinton beating the shit out of the Trump voters with padded clubs.
But that would be too violent... maybe. And, if it were me who had lost my job and they gave me a club, it'd take 15 people to pull me away from you nit-witted trolls.

Moving on to another location in the Midwest, but still smack-dab in the heart of Doofania (Phineas and Ferb), Fox6 and Money reports that GE is closing their plant in Waukesha and move its 300-plus jobs to Canada.
And yes... Yes... YEs... YES, the addlepated dwellers of Swale of Stupid are SHOCKED! DISAPPOINTED! and SADDENED! this is happening.
I'm sure the DUH-nizens are all of those things and more.
Maybe... and just maybe now... YOU SHOULD HAVE F@CKING THOUGHT OF THAT WHEN YOU NOT ONLY VOTED FOR THE ORANGE SWINE, BUT ALSO VOTED TO RE-ELECT JOHNSON TO THE SENATE AND RYAN TO CONGRESS.
By a hefty margin of over 2:1 You Butt-Clowns voted for the poor man's Mussolini. By over 2:1 you voted for the reject from the Movie Leprechaun Paul Ryan (rejected because he was too sociopathic for the part).

You want a good laugh. It's pathetic, but I laughed.
“Doesn’t he realize that we voted for him? He should have been there and saw my wife crying. He should have been there,” Kenneth Olsen said (of Ryan).
Poor... poor Kenneth Olsen. You voted for Truquemada and IT and now you and your wife (who also likely voted for them) has a sad.
And why should Ryan show up? Do you have a hefty campaign donation for him. Or, do you just want to sit there while he laughs at your stupidity?
SCREW YOU!
Screw Bret Mattice, who voted for the first time...EVER! And guess for whom the dimbulb voted? If you guessed the least qualified person on the ballot, any ballot, in any country, at any time in history, you'd be correct.
Do us all a favor Bret Mattice, don't ever vote again... please
Oh... and screw you!

Then there's this primary school refuse, Joe Barlow. In an interview, supporter of the Annoying Orange reject, Joe Barlow, said this....
Note... pay careful attention to your jaw. It may drop so hard and so fast you could hurt yourself. My suggestion is to tie it off like Jacob Marley in a Christmas Carol
“I don’t believe there’s hope for our plant. My hope is, companies like that, that offshore all the work, I hope he follows through on his 35% tax and punishes those businesses,”
You see that? "I hope he follows through on his 35%...blah." Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! He hopes Trump follows through on a campaign promise.
Screw You Joe. You and your Trumpists screwed over your fellow employees, the one's who didn't vote for the squalid-one. The one's who didn't just say, "How fucking stupid a vote can I cast? Hmmmmm. I know. I'll vote for all three. Because what could possibly go wrong?"

Here's the difference between you People Under the Stairs and say, some out of work guy, who is surfing through garbage dumps hoping to find enough scrap metal that he can sell to survive. I can almost understand them. They had nothing to lose. But... you... you F@CKERS had good paying jobs. At the time, your plant in Wisconsin was NOT... I repeat NOT in danger of closing. In fact, it was his election and the inane rantings of the Evil Elf about the Import-Export Bank that got it closed and moved on to Canada.
You had money! You had a House! You had something! You pittered it away for some unknown reason.
Write a book titled. "How NOT to be a squirrel brained jack-ass!"
Tell us what you were thinking, so we know what NOT to do

To my niece in Minnesota (still in the Midwest) who voted for Trump, for one reason and ONE REASON ONLY.... (dum... er... drum roll. I'm sure you already know the answer) "I did it for the babies."
Yes! Yes! Yes, ladies and gentlemen... Abortion! Abortion was the reason why she voted for the Fake Tanned Ogre! Abortion!
Now... now... she's all concerned because his policies could hurt the children. You know... the boys and girls that are NOT little growing pieces of tissue, that if removed from the womb would die within a few hours. Actual living, breathing HUMAN BEINGS.
SCREW YOU! Screw you and Your fucking Abortion fixation

Slogging back to Indiana and a revisit to dimwit Helen Beristain and her undocumented husband.
Ms. Helen Beristain actually thought her husband would not get deported.
Laugh along with me folks. She's as jaw dropping stupid as the guys in Wisconsin.

Ms. Helen Beristain somehow believed her husband would not be deported because only the 'Bad Hombres' would go. She said (before her husband was shipped off to Mexico) "I don't think ICE is out there to detain anyone and break families, no,"
She was, of course, shocked that her husband was kicked out.
How does she feel now? Don't know. According to CNN, she won't answer calls from any news sources.
Screw You Ms Helen Beristain. And screw Granger, Indiana... the very Republican Town of Granger, Indiana. The shocked citizenry of the town who thought Roberto would not be sent back because he was a good person, 'A Good Hombre'. Screw You

I could go on. There are so many of these stories. The dumb twerp in Florida who was afraid of losing his insurance, but felt it would be best to vote for the groper because he was certain it would be best for the whole country to do so, even if it hurt him.
Good job, Buttercup! You lost out. And... here's the part you somehow missed... They're SCREWING everyone over.
Oh.. unless you're a millionaire.

The oxygen thieves, the simpletons who voted for his Assness, or at the very least, wouldn't vote for Clinton because somehow... someway... there was 'NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.'
HYSTERICAL isn't it? Because if she were president right now, Gorsuch, or someone worse would be on the Court... I guess. Oh... and we'd be looking at selling off National Park Land. And of course, we'd have a President beholden to the closest thing to a real-life Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in Putin. And, of course, she'd have insulted half the leaders of our allies by whining about electoral votes and actual votes and her inauguration attendance and some other rubbish. And lied about taping conversations in the White House (or did trump lie?)
Screw You! Screw You! Screw You!

(And for the sake of transparency; 1. I voted for Sanders in the primary. 2. I did belong to the Clinton Group on DU. 3 I belonged to every Democratic President Group for 2016 on DU. 4. I voted for Clinton in the GE. Just in case you're thinking, "I wonder who rpannier voted for?")

Or the countless stupid people across the country, male and female, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, African American, western Asian, Protestants, Jews, Catholics, Muslims (yeah, I'm perplexed by that as well) who, for some inexplicable reason got up out of bed and said to themselves, "I'm going to do the FUCKING STUPIDEST THING I WILL EVER do in my entire lifetime."
They somehow found a polling station and voted for that thing that sits in the White House, in a bathrobe, screaming at a television set and finding new and different ways to enrich his family and friends, while screwing over everyone else.

Well... Screw You (he says calmly). You're an idiot. I cannot fix this problem. Most of my family cannot fix this problem. Many of my friends cannot. They got out and voted. They didn't vote for the orange-faced fake-haired charlatan.

****************
I am finished. I have said my piece. I am still not at piece with the low wattage loser in the WH.
And... one last thought....
Screw You if You voted for Trump

Sunday, June 25, 2017

New poll shows majority of Americans are unaware Trumpcare slashes Medicaid

Just 38 percent of people polled knew the Republican health care bill makes major cuts to Medicaid.


As Senate Republicans aim to force a vote on their version of Trumpcare — a bill that was written in secret, without public hearings, despite the fact that it will reshape one-sixth of the U.S. economy and impact the lives of millions of Americans — most people have been left in the dark.

Last month, the House passed their version of the bill, which would strip health care from 24 million people, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The bill also makes major cuts and structural changes to Medicaid, a health insurance program relied upon by nearly 75 million Americans — primarily low-income, disabled, and elderly.

The Senate version of Trumpcare goes even further, according to the draft released by Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday, effectively phasing out Medicaid entirely.

But according to a new poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation on Friday, only 38 percent of Americans are aware of the significant cuts to Medicaid that would be delivered by the House-passed bill (the poll was conducted before the details of the Senate bill were made public). Seventy-four percent of those polled, meanwhile, said they have a favorable opinion of Medicaid.

 
The KFF poll notes that “proposed Medicaid changes were not initially a major point of discussion surrounding consideration of the House bill… which may partly explain why many respondents were unaware of its effect.”

The Senate’s harsher Medicaid cuts were immediately met with fierce objections, however. Roughly 60 members of ADAPT, a U.S. disability rights organization that strongly opposes the Republican health care bill, staged a die-in outside of McConnell’s office on Thursday. Wheelchair users were arrested and dragged from the Capitol by police.

Moderate Republicans have also expressed their discomfort with the severe cuts to Medicaid, with the strongest objection thus far coming from Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) on Friday. “I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans,” the senator said at a press conference in Las Vegas.

 
Hours later, America First Policies — a pro-Trump group run by several of the president’s top campaign advisers — announced it was launching a seven-figure advertising campaign against Heller, Politico reported. Heller is widely viewed as one of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2018.

Ironically, President Donald Trump made protecting Medicaid a key component of his campaign, vowing to “save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts” in the speech announcing his candidacy.

Trump told the Washington Post’s Abby Phillip that the Senate version of Trumpcare needed “a little negotiation, but it’s going to be very good.” The president reportedly made calls to Senate Republicans on Friday to try to gin up support for the measure. Trump acknowledged there is a “very, very narrow path” to passage, but that “I think we’re going to get there,” Reuters reported.

Don't Let The Bastards Murder The Affordable Care Act

Posted by Rude One

Let us say, and why not, that you've got a car you've had for a few years. It was given to you by a boyfriend you broke up with a while back. The car's nothing fancy, but it gets you where you need to go and it's only given you a few minor problems here and there. Maintenance kind of stuff - new tires, a brake job - the stuff you expect to need to do to take good care of the car so it takes good care of you.

Now, let us say, and, indeed, why not, that you start dating a new guy who takes a look at your car and says, "Man, what a piece of shit. I'm gonna get you a new car. A better car. One that won't cost you nearly as much. Better gas mileage. Less repairs. Shiny damn paint job. And you can just trash that thing. That guy you were with before me didn't know shit about cars. I know better." It sounds good. I mean, who doesn't want a new car? But then he drives up in a rusted out hulk that looks like it's been beaten with a sledgehammer in a sand storm. You know it's gonna need a major overhaul, possibly a new engine or transmission. It's gonna be a pain in the ass and cost you a ton.

"The fuck is this?" you ask.

"I promised you a new car," he said. "I got you a new car. Now you can get rid of that car of yours I hate."

You would break up with that shitheel as soon as you could speak the words.

This morning, on NPR's Morning Edition, Tommy Binion, the congressional liaison for the Heritage Foundation (motto: "We came up with Obamacare but now we're too fucking crazy conservative to acknowledge that"), was asked why he thought Senate Republicans were moving forward with their version of the "mean" American Health Care Act, despite it having incredibly high negatives in polling. Binion was frank, saying, "I think what's happening here is [Republicans are] trying desperately to keep their promise to vote for anything that they can call Obamacare repeal. So in this case, yes, they've picked a very unpopular bill. That's part of what the process has thrust upon them. But they're determined to keep their promise."

That's the kind of fuckery we're dealing with. Not only is the bill being written by a shitty star chamber of white dudes who represent less than a quarter of the population of the country, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch "One Day, Children Will Say My Name in the Same Breath as Benedict Arnold" McConnell is determined to get a vote in the next two weeks, with at most 10 hours for senators not locked in a room and forced to breathe in Orrin Hatch's old man farts to read it, debate it, and amend it. That is fucked beyond fucked. That is contorting yourself into a pretzel to suck your own dick kind of fucked. Even the senators themselves can't justify the bill beyond the idea of repealing the ACA.

Here's a handy, one paragraph review of what happened when the Affordable Care Act went to the Senate in 2009: President Obama actively courted Republicans to get on board, especially Maine's Olympia Snowe. Hell, snarky asshole bloggers were pissed about his outreach. The bill was debated in the Senate Finance Committee before it passed from there to the Senate floor. That was after three House committees and the Senate health committee had vetted it, with Republicans able to debate it the whole time. This was followed by weeks of more debate and amendment votes. So if any dumbfuck conservative tries to ejaculate stupidly about how Democrats rushed through the ACA, shove that list from Congress up their idiot asses.

Look, it's time to stick a pin in the left's Russia hard-on right now in order to get all hands, voices, and boots on deck to stop the American Health Care Act from passage. It's a terrible bill filled with terrible ideas, concocted by terrible human beings. So it's time for Hayes/Maddow/O'Donnell/Reid and whoever else to knock off the financial conflict and espionage stories for a while and go whole hog on this. Right now, Democrats are doing something by denying unanimous consent to proceed on any votes in the Senate, and they are holding the floor in a "talkathon," speeches about the unfair process.

But these delay tactics need to be followed by even more. The "filibuster by amendment" is one approach, where Democrats keep proposing amendments that need to be voted on until Republicans agree to hold hearings on the bill. Pressure needs to brought to bear on the seemingly wavering Republican senators, who need to be reminded who will be blamed when the AHCA doesn't do any of the shit voters were promised.

One last thing needs to happen, and I'm frankly stunned that it hasn't happened yet. The Affordable Care Act is the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. Where the fuck is he? Why the fuck isn't Barack Obama barnstorming the country, riling people up? He gets to protect his legacy. Enough of being above the fray. Fuck that. Lives are on the line, man, and a bunch of vicious assholes are shitting all over him.

Obama, Biden, get 'em all out there, giving interviews, tearing into the cruelty of those who want to turn back the clock. This is life and death, motherfuckers. Let's all act like it is.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. 

Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

At that point, the outlines of the Russian assault on the U.S. election were increasingly apparent.

Hackers with ties to Russian intelligence services had been rummaging through Democratic Party computer networks, as well as some Republican systems, for more than a year. In July, the FBI had opened an investigation of contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. And on July 22, nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were dumped online by WikiLeaks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.12a31b9dd507&hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiaobama-banner-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Friday, June 23, 2017

Mitch McConnell Allowed Russia To Attack The US To Help Trump


In a tone that would become familiar in the following months, Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) allowed Russia to interfere in the election to help Trump by expressing skepticism about the intelligence that Russia was meddling in the 2016 presidential election. 

In a tone that would become familiar in the following months, Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) allowed Russia to interfere in the election to help Trump by expressing skepticism about the intelligence that Russia was meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The Washington Post reported:

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.

Sen. McConnell’s doubt of the intelligence is the same tactic that has been used by Trump and his administration since the Russia scandal heated up. The other problem is that the Obama White House let McConnell block them and did nothing. Looking back with 20/20 perspective, it is easy to say that Obama should have issued a warning about Russian election meddling without the Republicans on board, but his concern that the Russia issue would turn into a partisan one that could destroy the integrity of the election was legitimate.

What the now former president couldn’t have known was that he was facing a no-win situation. The integrity of this election was going be damaged no matter what because the Russians had already acted.

Mitch McConnell made sure that this election ended up damaged, and the process lost credibility by doubting the intelligence about Russian election interference.

Republicans sold out their country and democracy to win an election. Russia interfered with the election, and Sen. McConnell allowed them to get away with it because it helped him and his party.

The Russia scandal goes beyond Trump, and if Americans are going to prevent a future on our democracy, they must remove Russia enabling Republicans like Mitch McConnell from their positions of power.

Counsel Investigating Trump For Money Laundering

If Trump made an illegal deal with the Russians, Robert Mueller wants to find out. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.

“In addition to investigating whether or not Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice by firing former FBI Director James Comey, special counsel Robert Mueller is also reportedly investigating “money laundering by Trump associates,” the New York Times reports. The Times report corroborates a separate bombshell Washington Post article, published Wednesday, that said in addition to possible obstruction, investigators are also “looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates.”

“A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates,” a source told the Times. “The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been done in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payoffs, most likely by routing them through offshore banking centers.”

Read more here:

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/special-counsel-mueller-also-investigating-possible-money-laundering-by-trump-associates/

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Jon Ossoff Continues Corporate Democrat Losing Streak

"AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Georgia, where the Republicans have pulled off a victory in the most expensive congressional race in history. In a special election in Georgia’s 6th District, Republican Karen Handel won nearly 53 percent of the vote, defeating her challenger, Democrat Jon Ossoff, to be—to fill the seat left vacant after Tom Price resigned to become secretary of health and human services.

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/6/21/as_jon_ossoff_loses_georgia_special

The candidates and outside groups spent more than $55 million on the race, a record-shattering amount. While the seat has been held by a Republican for decades, Democrats were hoping to pull off an upset in the suburban Atlanta district where Trump’s approval rating is just 35 percent. This marks the fourth congressional race Democrats have lost since the election of Trump. Speaking Tuesday night, Handel thanked Trump.”

Help make the Democratic party more progressive at: www.justicedemocrats.com The establishment Democrat losing streak continues. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Trump seeks sharp cuts to housing aid, except for program that brings him millions

Trump’s budget calls for sharply reducing funding for programs that shelter the poor and combat homelessness — with a notable exception: It leaves intact a type of federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords.

One of those landlords is Trump himself, who earns millions of dollars each year as a part-owner of Starrett City, the nation’s largest subsidized housing complex. Trump’s 4 percent stake in the Brooklyn complex earned him at least $5 million between January of last year and April 15, according to his recent financial disclosure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-seeks-sharp-cuts-to-housing-aid-except-for-program-that-brings-him-millions/2017/06/20/bf1fb2b8-5531-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

10 Ways Mitch McConnell's Secret, Evil Senate Operation To Destroy The Affordable Health Care Act Will Make Life Hell For Many Americans

Mitch McConnell's politics have always been abysmal. But now he's playing with people's lives.

Photo Credit: cspan.org

As details emerge from Senate Republicans’ backroom deliberations to write a single bill repealing Obamacare, defunding Medicaid and deregulating health insurance, it's clear that virtually no American household—apart from the very rich—would be immune from fiscally painful and medically harsh consequences if the GOP gets a bill to the president’s desk.

For the past month, an 11 man committee appointed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, has been meeting in secret to fine-tune the House-passed Obamacare repeal legislation. They are not starting anew, but are polishing a bill that will leave 15-20 million people without health care, prompt higher insurance and medical costs for all but the youngest adults, freeze and shrink state-run Medicaid (which now covers 45 percent of the children in rural America), and defund Planned Parenthood. This is according to analyses by the Congressional Budget Office, Kaiser Family Foundation and others.

Even the pro-corporate Washington Post editorial board has called out the GOP for its chaos-creating prescriptions, writing that they are “motivated to solve a problem that does not exist—saving a health-care system supposedly on the path to inevitable collapse by repealing and replacing Obamacare.” None of that seems to matter to McConnell, who wants to pass the as-yet-unreleased bill before the Senate’s July 4 recess. While defections from the GOP’s far right or few moderates could thwart any Senate bill’s passage, the White House has made it clear it wants McConnell to pass something the president can sign.

What’s unfolding in Washington right now is appalling. Beyond the cowardly political tactics, the GOP is literally playing with the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Everyone ages, and many will get sick and develop chronic illness and disease. The consequences can be devastating if the GOP shreds medical safety nets for the poor and allows the insurance industry to charge more yet deliver less health security in myriad ways.

What follows are 10 takeaways from the Senate’s Obamacare repeal process.

1. McConnell’s skullduggery is back. As Andy Slavitt, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2015 to 2017, wrote in a Washington Post column Saturday, only 8 percent of the public supported passage of the House’s Obamacare repeal bill (which also slashed Medicaid and included major tax cuts for the rich). He could have told senators to fix Obamacare’s problems, such as allowing small states to form insurance pools.

“Instead, McConnell put a plan in place to pass something close to the House bill using three simple tools: sabotage, speed and secrecy,” Slavitt wrote. “He formed a committee to meet secretly, hold no hearings, create a fast-track process and pressure Senate skeptics with backroom deals.” Trump just wants it done, Politico.com reported. “He’s definitely leaving it to Mitch to lead. But he very much wants it to happen,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, told Politico.

2. Congressional chaos is having its desired effect—2018 premiums to rise. The GOP is not just sending mixed signals about what they may do to one-sixth of the U.S. economy. They are intentionally provoking insurers to raise their prices for 2018 as a pretext to pass their legislation.

This was cited in a Washington Post editorial, “The GOP’s Obamacare Sabotage Continues,” in which the editorial board was unusually clear-eyed. “‘Insurers have made clear the lack of certainty is causing 2018 proposed premiums to rise significantly,’ House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) said Thursday, arguing that Congress should step in.” That’s creating a problem to fit a solution.

3. Meanwhile Trump’s team is also embracing more chaos. The Trump team is doing everything it can not to enforce Obamacare, such as “lax enforcement of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, inadequate efforts to enroll more people in coverage and other gratuitous subversions of the finely tuned system Obamacare sought to create,” the same Post editorial said. As significant, the White House is refusing to commit to paying 2018 Obamacare subsidies for millions, according to Vox.com, which reported that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price wouldn’t even tell a U.S. Senate committee what the administration’s plans were.

4. Against this backdrop, the Senate is 'making progress.' That’s the word from a handful of center-right Republicans who have been shown glimpses of what’s going on behind closed doors—as if reversing one or two planks of the House bill is supposed to be a sign of moderation. That is absurd. Moreover, what the Senate is said to be doing is terrible.

For example, restoring Obamacare’s pre-existing condition rule—which requires insurers to sell people policies—but without cost controls or coverage requirements. Last month’s Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House-passed bill said a wide swath of the public “would be unable to purchase comprehensive coverage with premiums close to those under current law and might not be able to purchase coverage at all.” Moreover, many policies are likely to cover less once minimum coverage standards are deregulated.

5. The young will pay less, but everyone else won’t. The only people who stand to benefit, the New York Times reported, are those least likely to get sick. “The budget office [CBO] did note that the House bill would potentially lead to lower prices, especially for younger and healthier people,” it said. “But the budget office also warned that markets in states that allowed insurers to charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions—whether high blood pressure, a one-time visit to a specialist or cancer.” This is what deregulation of the insurance industry will bring. The industry will go back to creating more barriers between patients and doctors.

6. Many policies will only be used for hospitalization. Other analyses include scenarios where people will see deductibles rise to levels where they will pay for most care until a serious emergency requiring hospital care arises. As the Times wrote, that can amount to a major fiscal burden.

“Millions of people could also wind up with little choice but to buy cheap plans that provided minimal coverage in states that opted out of requiring insurers to cover maternity care, mental health and addiction treatment or rehabilitation services, among other services required under the Affordable Care Act. Consumers who could not afford high premiums would wind up with enormous out-of-pocket medical expenses.”

7. Medicaid is going to be frozen, justified by big lies. Another detail that’s leaked out of the Senate drafting sessions is that it’s not a question whether Medicaid will see $800 billion in reduced spending and 14 million fewer recipients during the next decade, as the House bill laid out. Rather it is a question of how fast the Medicaid rollback will be. The Hill reports there’s been debate whether it will be three years or seven years. Vox.com also reports that the Senate wants to institute an approach that could lead to sharper funding cuts than the House: more frequent revisions to Medicaid reimbursement rates.

The White House and GOP talking points on this are a series of lies. HHS Secretary Price told a Senate committee, “We are trying to decrease the number of uninsured,” after the CBO estimated that 23 million people would lose insurance. Trump has said he will not touch Medicare—even though Medicaid pays for nursing home care in that program. And Republicans keep saying this is not spending cuts, but slower spending increases. “What the defenders of this claim—ranging from Karl Rove to Sally Pipes—have insisted is that this is a cut to the growth rate, not cuts to the existing program,” wrote health policy blogger Emma Sandoe. “The reality is that states will have to reduce the number of services they provide or reduce the types of people that can enroll as inflation and increased costs in medical services rise.”

8. This is a war on government and on the poor. What the GOP is trying to do is not just go after Obamacare, but dismantle safety nets dating back to the 1960s. As Sandoe noted, “The GOP has campaigned for decades on the idea that the social welfare state is bloated and that the oversized growth of the welfare state needs to be trimmed. The GOP should embrace the idea of calling per-capita caps and block grants cuts. From a policy perspective, the goal of the per-capita caps and block grants is to reduce the size and scope of the program.”

9. Republicans are pursuing this despite vast opposition. Recent polls show safety nets are incredibly popular while the GOP’s American Health Care Act is not. On Medicaid alone, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll by Democrats and Republicans opposed cutting its expansion and changing its financing structure. “Many other polls show that the majority of voters have favorable views of Medicaid, coming close to the level of support for Medicare,” Sandoe wrote. “Telling is that a Quinnipiac poll found that Republicans oppose cuts to Medicaid. This is one possible reason that the latest [GOP] messaging appears to be focused on reframing the cuts as minimal. Meanwhile, the AHCA has polled from 1721 percent by Quinnipiac and only 8 percent think that the Senate should pass these reforms without changes.”

10. If this passes, a colossal downward spiral will ensue. The impact of the AHCA, if passed, is not just going to be fiscal—in terms of increased out-of-pocket costs for those with insurance policies. As the Times reported, people age 50 and older, and “millions of middle- and working-class Americans” will once again be trapped in their jobs because they will be unable to pay for coverage. “The Affordable Care Act has enabled many of those workers to get transitional coverage that provides a bridge to the next phase of their lives—a stopgap to get health insurance if they leave a job, are laid off, start a business or retire early.”

For those too poor to buy insurance, Medicaid will contract and likely be forced to focus on emergency and crisis care, rather than prevention. Rationing care will likely ensue, unless states step in with raising revenues to offset federal cutbacks. Safety nets are likely to roll backwards, landing somewhere between where they are now and where they were before Obamacare’s reforms took effect.

McConnell’s Fast Track
As Axios.com reported, McConnell is hoping to finalize the Senate’s legislation this week, because the Congressional Budget Office will need two weeks to “score” it—the Washington term for assessing its financial and programmatic impacts—if it is to come up for a Senate floor vote before the July 4 break. While it's possible that McConnell could present a bill without that analysis, it is likely that more details will emerge in coming days.

At that point, Republicans will surely feel the full wrath of voters who aren’t going to have anything positive to say if their health care is trashed, or if the GOP tries to blame Obama and the Democrats for market chaos they have worsened, not diminished.

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America's democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

The Confederate General Babbles Before Congress

Posted by Excommunicated Cardinal

At 2:30pm Eastern time today, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III will testify under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding his contacts with government officials of the Russian Federation prior to the January 20th inauguration, as well as his role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Many burning questions remain for Sessions.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has brought on money laundering experts, a veritable "murders' row" of prosecutors, while the right-wing world has turned on him in a transparent and vicious attempt to undermine the credibility of the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia and other filthy laundry the investigation turns up.

To complicate matters further for the embattled chief executive, there are reports that he is considering attempting to fire Robert Mueller. Jesse Eisinger and Justin Elliott of ProPublica have also reported that Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz has claimed to have been a catalyst in the firing of former US Attorney Preet Bhara.

In other news, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration in regards to Trump's self-proclaimed travel ban, unanimously upholding an injunction preventing the implementation of the policy.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell is trying desperately to pass another cruel ACA-repeal bill with no public text or CBO score.

Monday, June 12, 2017

When Trump Said He'd Testify, He Didn't Mean To Congress

Trump will not testify before Congress under oath, a development that legal experts say was expected but that illustrates the pitfalls of the president’s tendency to shoot from the hip in public remarks.

Trump said at a Friday press conference that would “100%” agree to give sworn testimony in response to former FBI director James Comey’s allegations last week.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president was “specifically asked whether or not he would talk to Director Mueller,” the special counsel investigating alleged Russian election meddling, under oath.

In fact, Trump was asked generally about giving sworn testimony rebutting Comey’s allegations that the president asked him to pledge loyalty and to ease up on the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Asked a follow-up about Mueller specifically, the president said he would speak with him as well.

Congressional Democrats were giddy at the prospect of grilling Trump under oath, but experts say that testimony was probably never going to happen. “I think that was expected,” said national security attorney Bradley Moss. “Having the President testify before Congress raises significant separation of powers concerns. The last to do it was Gerald Ford and all others since have adamantly refused.”

But Moss and his law partner Mark Zaid say the president didn’t seem aware of that fact during his remarks on Friday. “This Presidency is marked like none other by a White House tendency to reinterpret the specific words of the President. Every time that happens its credibility suffers,” Zaid said in an email.

Lachlan Markay

Saturday, June 10, 2017

BREAKING: ‘USA Today’ Drops Jeff Sessions Testimony Bombshell

By Carissa House-Dunphy

After the testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey on Thursday, which raised as many questions as it answered, pundits and politicians on both sides of the aisle are left to analyze and debate what it all meant. The information given to the American public did not, however, end with Comey’s testimony.
On Tuesday, new testimony will be presented to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science by Trump-appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions has recently come under fire for his failure to disclose secret meetings with Russian government operatives in his requests for security clearance as attorney general. Questioning, however, will apparently not focus on those meetings, nor will it focus on matters related to commerce or science.

According to USA Today:

‘The hearing is supposed to focus on the 2017 budget request for the Department of Justice. But Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the overall Appropriations Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday he will press Sessions about his role in President Trump’s May decision to fire Comey as FBI director.’

While Trump’s spokespeople insisted that the president fired James Comey on the recommendations of Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Trump later denied that to Lester Holt during a televised interview in which he insisted that he alone made the decision to fire Comey.

The rapid turnaround in the narrative came after questions were raised as to why Sessions was involved in decisions about Comey at all, considering that Comey was in the process of investigating the president’s campaign team for collusion with Russia and Sessions had recused himself from all decision involving that investigation after his undisclosed meetings with Russian government officials became public.

The country once again waits with bated breath for more details of this ongoing saga.

The GOP Failed And Now We’re Stuck With Trump



As the carnage of World War I widened, Barbara Tuchman recounts in “The Guns of August,” a German leader asked a colleague, “How did it all happen?”

“Ah,” replied the other, “if only one knew.”

A century later, there is no mystery to the carnage that Donald Trump has wrought.

Everything we have seen in these first 140 days—the splintering of the Western alliance, the grifter’s ethics he and his family embody, the breathtaking ignorance of history, geopolitics and government, the jaw-dropping egomania, the sheer incompetence and contempt for democratic norms—was on full display from the moment his campaign began. And that’s not just what Democrats think—it’s what many prominent Republicans have said all along.

Once Trump was elected, his foes began to indulge in a series of fantasies about how to prevent his ascendancy or how to remove him from power. The electors should refuse to vote for him (which would have thrown the election into the House, which would have chosen Trump); the Cabinet and the vice-president should use the 25th Amendment to declare him unable to exercise his duties (a scenario, as I have written here earlier, that works just fine on TV melodramas like “24” and “Scandal”); Congress should impeach him (which would require 20 GOP House members and 19 Republican senators to join every Democratic lawmaker).

So this may be a good time to remember that in a key sense, Trump happened because a well-established, real-life mechanism that was in the best position to prevent a Trump presidency failed. That institution was the Republican Party.

It is not entirely true that Trump engineered a “hostile takeover” of the GOP, provided that the party is defined more broadly than elected officials and party insiders. As Conor Friedersdorf wrote last year in the Atlantic: “the elements of the party that sent pro-Trump cues or Trump is at least acceptable’ signals to primary voters—Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Breitbart.com, The Drudge Report, The New York Post, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Jeff Sessions, Rick Scott, Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio—are simply more powerful, relative to National Review, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and other ‘Trump is unacceptable’ forces, than previously thought.”

What is true, however, is that the governing wing of the party was fully aware that Trump was not to be trusted with the levers of power. In January of last year, National Review devoted an entire issue to a symposium where 22 prominent Republicans and conservatives detailed their militant opposition to the candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry—who is now Trump’s energy secretary—called “a cancer” on the American political system. Until his nomination was all but assured, Trump had the backing of a lone Republican senator, Jeff Sessions (who is now his embattled attorney general).

More broadly, the whole idea of a disparate party coming together at a convention was, for decades, rooted in the “vetting” process; those experienced in the mechanics of politics and governments would decide which of the candidates were best equipped to win an election and carry out the party’s agenda in Washington. It’s beyond obvious that in the decades since primaries replaced power brokers as the delegate-selecting process, this role has attenuated. But it survives today as an “In-Case-Of-Emergency-Break-Glass” tool. And the question is: Why didn’t the Republican Party employ it?

Explanations have ranged from the fragmented nature of the opposition—no early consensus choice as with George W. Bush in 2000—to the underestimation of Trump’s appeal (the establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie spent their time and money attacking each other, while Ted Cruz was constantly praising Trump, hoping to ride in his wake when he collapsed).

But one often overlooked reason—and one for parties to remember if they hope to avoid future Trumps—is that the rules of the GOP greatly benefitted Trump. The party allows winner-take-all primaries by congressional district or statewide— which in many states hugely magnified Trump’s delegate totals. Trump won 32 percent of the South Carolina vote, but all 50 delegates. He won 46 percent of the Florida vote but all 99 delegates. He won 39 percent of the Illinois vote, but 80 percent of the 69 delegates. By contrast, Democrats—who abolished winner-take-all primaries more than 40 years ago, insist on a proportional system, much like parents cut the cake at a children’s birthday party. The result is that an intensely motivated minority cannot seize the lion’s share of delegates.

Another rule may well have stayed the hand of Republicans who saw in Trump an unacceptable nominee. The Democratic Party gives more than 700 people seats as “super delegates.” Every senator, every House member, every governor and a regiment of party officials are, by rule, unbound.

They make up 15 percent of the total votes at the convention. Republicans only have some 150 “automatic” delegates—7 percent of the total—and they must vote the way their state’s primary voters did. Thus, the whole idea of an emergency brake is almost nonexistent in the GOP.

Whether such tools should exist is a matter of debate. Many Democrats on their party’s left disdain the idea of such backroom politics (although toward the end of the 2016 primary season, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ backers were urging super delegates to vote for him on the grounds that the was the more electable candidate in November). If a candidate comes to the convention with more votes than anyone else, but with more voters having chosen a different candidate, what’s the “right” thing for an unbound delegate to do? The famous assertion by Edmund Burke, that “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” is very much out of fashion among the populist movements on left and right.

But either by cluelessness or willful design, the Republican Party had put itself in a position where one of the most significant functions of a party—the “vetting” of its prospective nominee—was rendered impotent.

And we are living with that institutional failure every day.

Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.

Random Observations On Comey's Testimony

Posted by Rude One

1.  Hey, there, Americans who voted for Donald Trump for president. I just wanna offer a hearty "thanks" for putting Trump in office. I mean, I thought things would be crazy, but, seriously, I never expected Trump to exceed expectations so quickly. Are you having fun yet? Are you tired of winning? Man, I sure am. I can't handle all this winning.

That's what it is, right? Trump's wins? Having the former director of the FBI testify under oath that Trump is a debased, immoral lying liar who lies so much that you gotta be ready for more lies? That's winning, no?

Having an attorney general who perjured himself repeatedly? Winning so hard that it hurts! And bonus winning: Trump never asked Comey about Russian interference in American elections. That means Trump knew the answer already. Or he didn't give a shit because it benefited him.

Goddamn, I don't see how you Trump voters can stand all this fucking winning.

You can brag about all these wins, Trump voters. All nearly 63 million of you, every single one a racist, moron, hypocrite, and/or liar. You own this. How's that feel? Is any of this getting through the Breitbart haze and Fox "news" mist? When tens of millions of people lose their health insurance and thousands of people die, that's on you, you dumbass motherfuckers. When another banking crisis wipes out your meager retirement funds or makes you lose your home, that's also on you.

You did this to the nation. You decided that you'd rather tear the country down because of some delusion that the rich man was gonna make you rich, too. You decided to ignore every single person, even Republicans, who told you that you were flushing the United States down the shitter, and you sure showed us. Yeah, you did.

You need to choke on your votes. You need to feel ashamed. When this is over, even if we have to wait until 2019, you need to beg for forgiveness from those of us who knew better.

But you won't. At this point, you could walk into a room where your mother has been raped and murdered, see Trump standing there with a bloody knife and a dripping dick, and you’d still say, “Why do libtards hate America?”


2. Let me put on my English professor hat for a moment here. Trump told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” Starting with Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, to some on the right, this meant that Trump was merely stating something that he was wishing might come true, like Comey was a well he had tossed a penny into, with no real expectation that it would.

And that might be right if Trump had told Comey, “I hope unicorns are real.” But he didn’t. Instead, Trump asked everyone who was in the room to leave him alone with Comey. And then he expressed this “hope.” If you’re alone with your boss and your boss says, “I hope you can finish those documents by morning,” there is an implicit “or else.”

To see this in any way other than as a command is to descend into “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” levels of linguistic fuckery. Fuck you, defenders of Trump. Everyone fucking knows what he was saying. Let’s stop pretending that all of a sudden it’s an innocent, earnest desire said theoretically, as if you have no control over it. “I hope Grandma doesn’t have cancer” is a fuck of a lot different than “I hope you don’t make me punch you.”

3. What Republicans are doing now is asking, “Who do you believe? The President? Or your own lying ears?” Words don’t have meaning. To write up a private meeting and then give those notes to the media is called “leaking,” even though no classified information was involved. “Vindication” apparently means “I don't fucking care what anyone says.”

4. A few things are clear. The President of the United States is a liar. It’s something that everyone around him has said about him. It’s something that he has said himself. And if the president can’t be trusted, then why should anyone listen to anything he says or promises? (See #1. Those fuckers will believe him even when they're standing in their own radioactive shit in the middle of a scorched wasteland.)

5. The vast majority of Americans who want Trump stopped, who don’t believe in his agenda, who think something is incredibly fucked here, are on their own. Democrats have virtually no power right now. And the Republicans have no interest in holding him to account. Nothing will happen unless Democrats take back at least the House in the 2018 midterm elections. Until then, we can look forward to nonstop scandal and the cruel dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, two things that will rapidly send the United States spiraling into chaos.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: What happens now is on Republicans. Trump's attempt to influence the FBI investigation is way worse, on so many levels, than a president lying under oath about whether or not he got a blow job in the Oval Office. But that was enough for Republicans to drag us through the Clinton impeachment, enough for them to say that the rule of law must take precedent.

These hypocritical sows of the GOP, many of whom were there back in the late 1990's, just roll around in their own mud and waste, telling the rest of us to join them because they're not gonna stop.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

When Will Trump Voters Realize They've Been Had?

People don't like to admit they were wrong, which is what they would be doing if they concede that Trump is not up to the job.

Photo Credit: George Sheldon / Shutterstock.com

When will the people of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, those stalwart Trump voters who believe he’ll be bringing back coal jobs, finally figure out they’ve been had?

History suggests it's unrealistic to expect people to change their minds quickly. This is a pattern that has held for centuries. In the 1600's the Salem witch trials dragged on for eight long months before townsfolk finally began to realize that they had been caught up in an irrational frenzy. More recently, Americans proved during Watergate that they are reluctant to turn on a president they have just elected despite mounds of evidence incriminating him in scandalous practices. The Watergate burglary took place on June 17, 1972. But it wasn't until April 30, 1973 – eleven months later – that his popularity finally fell below 50 percent. This was long after the Watergate burglars had been tried and convicted and the FBI had confirmed news reports that the Republicans had played dirty tricks on the Democrats during the campaign. Leaked testimony had even showed that former Attorney General John Mitchell knew about the break-in in advance. But not until Nixon fired White House Counsel John Dean and White House aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resigned did a majority turn against the president. And even at that point Nixon's poll numbers stood higher than Trump's. Nixon:  48 percent; Trump: 42 percent.

It's not just conservative voters who are reluctant to change their minds. So are liberals. After news reports surfaced in the 1970s proving that John Kennedy was a serial philanderer millions of his supporters refused to acknowledge it. A poll in 2013 show a majority of Americans still think of him as a good family man.

Thus far not even many leading Democrats have been willing to come out in favor of Trump's impeachment. Cory Booker, the liberal senator from New Jersey, said this past week it's simply too soon. And if a guy like Booker is not yet prepared to come straight out for impeachment, why should we think Trump voters would be willing to? It is only just in the last few weeks that polls show that a plurality of voters now favor Trump's impeachment. (Twelve percent of self-identified Trump voters share this view, which is remarkable.)

It's no mystery why people are reluctant to change their minds. Social scientists have produced hundreds of studies that explain the phenomenon. Rank partisanship is only part of the answer. Mainly it’s that people don't like to admit they were wrong, which is what they would be doing if they concede that Trump is not up to the job. When Trump voters hear news that puts their leader in an unfavorable light they experience cognitive dissonance. The natural reaction to this is to deny the legitimacy of the source of the news that they find upsetting. This is what explains the harsh attacks on the liberal media. Those stories are literally making Trump voters feel bad. As the Emory University social scientist Drew Westen has demonstrated, people hearing information contrary to their beliefs will cease giving it credence. This is not a decision we make at the conscious level. Our brain makes it for us automatically.

So what leads people to finally change their minds? One of the most convincing explanations is provided by the Theory of Affective Intelligence. This mouthful of a name refers to the tendency of people experiencing cognitive dissonance to feel anxiety when they do so. As social scientist George Marcus has explained, when the burden of hanging onto an existing opinion becomes greater than the cost of changing it, we begin to reconsider our commitments. What's the trigger? Anxiety. When there's a mismatch between our views of the way the world works and reality we grow anxious. This provokes us to make a fresh evaluation.

What this research suggests is that we probably have a ways to go before Trump voters are going to switch their opinions. While some are evidently feeling buyers' remorse, a majority aren't. They're just not anxious enough yet. Liberals need not worry. The very same headlines that are giving them an upset stomach are making it more and more likely Trump voters are also experiencing discomfort. What might push them over the edge?  One possibility would be a decision to follow through on his threat to end subsidies to insurance companies under Obamacare, leading to the collapse of the system, and the loss of coverage for millions of Trump voters. That’s become more and more likely since the Senate is apparently unable to pass the repeal and replace measure Trump has been counting on.  So liberals just have to wait and watch.  Will the story unfold like Watergate?  Every day the answer increasingly seems yes.

An optimist would argue that social media will help push people to change their minds faster now than in the past.  But social media could also have the opposite effect. People living in a bubble who get their media from biased sources online may be less likely to encounter the contrary views that stimulate reflection than was common, say, in the Nixon years when virtually all Americans watched the mainstream network news shows.  Eventually, one supposes, people will catch on no matter how they consume news.  Of late even Fox News viewers have heard enough disturbing stories about Trump to begin to reconsider their commitment to him.  That is undoubtedly one reason why Nate Silver found that so many Trump voters are reluctant to count themselves among the strongest supporters.

Rick Shenkman is the editor and founder of the History News Network and the author most recently of Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics (Basic Books, January 2016).