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

The Oldest Known Surviving PC Operating System

By Jenny List

You’ll all be familiar with the PC, the ubiquitous x86-powered workhorse of desktop and portable computing. All modern PC's are descendants of the original from IBM, the model 5150 which made its debut in August 1981. This 8088-CPU-driven machine was expensive and arguably not as accomplished as its competitors, yet became an instant commercial success.

The genesis of its principal operating system is famous in providing the foundation of Microsoft’s huge success. They had bought Seattle Computer Products’ 86-DOS, which they then fashioned into the first release version of IBM’s PC-DOS. And for those interested in these early PC operating systems there is a new insight to be found, in the form of a pre-release version of PC-DOS 1.0 that has found its way into the hands of OS/2 Museum.

Sadly they don’t show us the diskette itself, but we are told it is the single-sided 160K 5.25″ variety that would have been the standard on these early PCs. We say “the standard” rather than “standard” because a floppy drive was an optional extra on a 5150, the most basic model would have used cassette tape as a storage medium.

The disk is bootable, and indeed we can all have a play with its contents due to the magic of emulation. The dates on the files reveal a date of June 1981, so this is definitely a pre-release version and several months older than the previous oldest known PC-DOS version. They detail an array of differences between this disk and the DOS we might recognize, perhaps the most surprising of which is that even at this late stage it lacks support for .EXE executables.

You will probably never choose to run this DOS version on your PC, but it is an extremely interesting and important missing link between surviving 86-DOS and PC-DOS versions. It also has the interesting feature of being the oldest so-far-found operating system created specifically for the PC.

If you are interested in early PC hardware, take a look at this project using an AVR processor to emulate a PC’s 8088.

George Will: Republicans Are Wrong To Embrace A Political Sociopath

Best Twitter Thread On Trump's Guilt After Comey Hearing

The Wire creator David Simon lays out his theory for why Trump looks guilty as hell after the Comey hearing.

 

By Mike Redmond

 

I don't have much to add to the Comey hearing. It's become clear that depending on your political affiliation, you either saw a former FBI director call Trump a liar and lay the groundwork for an obstruction of justice case (while not so subtly hinting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions can't be trusted) or you saw some shit about Hillary Clinton's emails, and that's all that matters to you.

The objective truth is that Democrats stayed focused on the serious issue of Russian interference with American elections - which could bite either party in the ass at any given moment - while Republicans spent their time focusing on Hillary Clinton and the occasional semantical argument about whether Trump directly told Comey to stop the Russian investigation.

That's the plain and simple reality of the situation, but good fucking luck explaining to that a not insignificant portion of the population who doesn't even think the Russian situation is real. (On the Right or Left.)

So here's veteran Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon, more famously known for being the creative force behind HBO's The Wire, along with writing Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. Long story short, Simon knows his shit, and his insights on the Comey hearing are worth reading.

From Twitter:

Thread: A year with some good detectives taught me that often WHAT ISN'T SAID is the actual tell. And note what isn't discussed between....
...Trump and Comey. At no point does Trump make any concerted effort to discern whether or not Russia did in fact attempt to interfere...
...in the election. Indeed, he notes that the claim has created a cloud over his governance -- so he can scarcely say that it isn't...
...of real concern to him; his concern is premised in this meeting. Yet, he doesn't inquire as to what Comey and the FBI is yet discerning..
...about Russia's role. He doesn't even do so as a means of disparaging the claim. (i.e. "I'm sure you're finding out that there's nothing..
...to the claims of Russian interference, right?" It. Doesn't. Come. Up. In this regard, I am reminded of every innocent and guilty man...
...I ever witnessed in an interrogation room. The innocent ask a multitude of questions about what the detectives know, or why the cops...
...might think X or Y or whether Z happened to the victim. The guilty forget to inquire. They know. An old law school saw tells young...
...trial lawyers to remind their clients to stay curious in front of a jury. There's a famous tale of a murder case in which the body of...
...the defendant's wife had not been recovered yet he was charged with the killing. Defense attorney tells the jury in final argument...
..there's been no crime and the supposed victim will walk through the courtroom doors in 10 seconds. 30 seconds later the door remains...
...shut. "Ok, she isn't coming today. But the point is all of you on jury looked, and that my friends is reasonable doubt. You must acquit."
Jury comes back in twenty minutes: Guilty. Attorney goes to the foreman: "I thought I had you." Foreman: "You had me and ten others. But...
"...juror number 8 didn't look at the door, he looked at your client. And he didn't eye the door, he was examining his nails.
Even when he was completely alone with Comey, Trump didn't look at the door. He eyed his nails. It's an absolute tell.
Why? Because Trump already knows that there is some fixed amount of Russian interference on his behalf, and possibly, collusion as well.

And now to pretend that won't be greeted with responses about Hillary Clinton's emails or how I'm a neoliberal shill. What the hell is happening out there?

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

By Jeff Greenfield 

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.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

 

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.

FBI Notified: Mitch Mconnell In $2.5M Money Funnel Connected To Putin

By mhw

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/06/09/fbi-notified-after-mitch-mcconnell-exposed-in-2-5m-money-funnel-connected-to-putin/

By Natalie Thongrit - June 9, 2017

SNIP

Thanks to the hard work of Democratic pundit Scott Dworkin, it’s beginning to look like every Republican politician has some kind of link to Russia.

Over the last few months, Dworkin has revealed that several Republican senators — including John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — have accepted money from Russian donors. He also produced evidence of even more connections a couple of weeks ago that were shared by Palmer Report.

In May, Dworkin found documents that link Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to a super PAC that accepted $2.5 million from a “pro-Putin Ukrainian businessman.” He shared photos of the documents on Twitter, along with the following message:

‘#TrumpLeaks Docs: Mitch McConnell linked super PAC took $2.5 million from a pro-Putin Ukrainian businessman last election cycle #trumprussia’

#TrumpLeaks Docs: Mitch McConnell linked super PAC took $2.5 million from a pro-Putin Ukrainian businessman last election cycle #trumprussia pic.twitter.com/V7HTq16fCR

— Scott Dworkin (@funder) May 21, 2017

*Scott Walker*
Dworkin also found that McConnell is not the only person who has benefited from a pro-Putin businessman. He tweeted a couple of days later photos of documents that show Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker also received money from this “pro-Putin” individual during the last election cycle.

MORE..Interesting read.!



Why they refuse to have Trump investigated.
We all knew that bunch was invested in Putin's scam, now we have the story.

Another Message for Donald Trump from Former Mexican President Vicente Fox

Cyberpunk 2077 assets stolen by actual cyberpunks

Cyberpunk 2077 assets stolen by actual cyberpunks

Trump's Presidency Falls Apart And We're Still Arguing Over Whether He's An Autocrat

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.

By Rick Shenkman / History News Network

June 7, 2017, 12:04 PM GMT

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).

Fake News Media

Larry King, Ed Schultz On Putin's Payroll

Russia Today, Putin’s propaganda ‘news’ network, is getting help from familiar American media figures to undermine, well, America.

By Olivia Nuzzi

Photo Illustration by Kelly Caminero/The Daily Beast

Inside Russia Today’s American headquarters in Washington, across from the receptionist’s desk stamped by a lime green “RT” banner, an ad starring Ed Schultz and Larry King plays on a large screen TV.

Schultz and King, whom he dwarfs, stand opposite one another, marveling at the success of the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, which they both agree is astounding. “Follow the 2016 campaign right here on RT America!” Schultz says. King points at the camera and delivers the network’s slogan, “And question more.”

Founded 11 years ago Thursday in September of 2005, Russia Today is a Moscow-based, English-language news outlet which is funded by the Kremlin and serves to promote Russian state propaganda, like stories about the West collapsing and the CIA being to blame for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, which according to RT, Russia did not invade.

In 2010, RT branched out to the United States, launching RT America. In a 2014 BuzzFeed investigation, Rosie Gray reported former RT America employees describing “an atmosphere of censorship and pressure” at the network—like orders to report on Germany as a “failed state” despite any evidence that the country fits the criteria.

One RT anchor, Liz Wahl, protested by quitting live on air. She later described herself as “Putin’s pawn.” Casual viewing of the network shows a focus on negative stories about the U.S., from claims that American Olympians received special treatment which allowed them to take drugs to outward mocking of the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, despite claiming non-partisanship.

Nevertheless, the network today broadcasts shows hosted by Schultz, a former sportscaster turned right-wing radio host turned liberal bullhorn; King, the longtime host of Larry King Live; and Jesse Ventura, the former wrestler and governor of Minnesota who promotes 9/11 truther conspiracies, among a handful of other less notable names.

Ventura makes sense in a way—RT is a network, after all, with an Illuminati correspondent. Schultz and King, however, are head scratchers.

Both men left their major American networks—Schultz, when his MSNBC show was canceled in July 2015; King, when he retired from CNN in 2010—amid sinking ratings and dwindling popularity.

But that hardly makes them unique in television, where hosts can come and go with the seasons.

Neither was persona non grata in the U.S. media when they decided to work for what amounts to an arm of the Russian government, legitimizing the network with their presence—King, due to his long history as a reliable and trustworthy interviewer, and Schultz, for his reputation as an emotional, liberal populist who says what’s on his mind.

“Endorsements from prominent people can bring legitimacy to unknown brands,” Nicco Mele, the director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said. “That’s true of tennis shoes and that’s true of media properties.” Hiring King and Schultz, Mele said, grants RT America a “patina of respectability” although, unlike Al Jazeera English, which was initially feared to be an extension of the Qatari government, RT America has not made it a point to build a robust newsroom or pursue shoe-leather reporting. As for concerns about RT, Mele said, “I don’t feel like it’s been overstated.”

Amid Trump’s decision to appear on King’s program last week—which was criticized by, among others, President Obama—the hosts’ strange association with the Russian government has come into focus just as concerns about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election have reached a fever pitch.

RT America, with its corn fed media personalities serving to soften the blow of blatantly anti-American Russian propaganda, now looks like proof of those concerns, available for viewing 24 hours a day on a cable channel near you.

And the question remains, why would any American work there if they could avoid it?

“Desperation,” Jeff Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism, said. “To go on RT is—to me—primarily just a desperate move to have a camera in front of you with willful disregard for who’s putting that camera there.”

Schultz had initially been eager to do an interview about his role at RT and provide his own answer to that question.

He scheduled the conversation to take place immediately at his office near the White House after receiving the request on Tuesday afternoon.

“Your story just got better,” he wrote in an email. “Obama just called out Trump for doing an interview on RT. The Russian propaganda channel. We are not propaganda. Yes, I will speak with you.”

But then something changed abruptly.

“I guess I cant do the interview, [sic]” he wrote, just 12 minutes later.

The receptionist said he was at his usual post on the 7th floor, but he refused to come down. “I’m sorry for this… I’m just aware of how unfair the DB has been to RT,” he said, perhaps referring to the sometimes-stormy history between the two organizations. “I’m not willing to take that chance.

Thanks Ed.”

When Schultz was on MSNBC, he was an enthusiastic critic of Trump, whom he lanced as a “racist,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he derisively labeled “Putie.” But since joining RT in January, The News With Ed Schultz host has been neutered.

He’s an anchor now, he stresses, not a pundit. But, as Michael Crowley noted for Politico Magazine, his shows often focus on U.S. missteps at home and abroad, from oversized budgets to failing policies in the Middle East. Trump, rather than being called out, is instead given an exceedingly fair shake, characterized as someone who’s “tapped into anger among working people.”

It’s Putin-approved programming, in other words.

Obama, speaking in Philadelphia on Tuesday, said Trump, “just last week went on Russian state television to talk down our military and to curry favor with Vladimir Putin. He loves this guy!”

RT America obsessively covered the remark. Correspondent Caleb Maupip dismissively called it “a standup comedy routine.”

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and even parroted the Kremlin talking point that Russia did not seize Crimea, and the Russian conspiracy theory that Obama founded ISIS. Thousands of Twitter accounts, known for pushing demonstrably-fake Russian news stories, are also reliably on the #TrumpTrain. When his campaign was run by Paul Manafort, a lobbyist who worked for Russian oligarchs (among other unsavory characters), they took the unprecedented step of softening the Republican Party platform’s language regarding how far the United States would go in defending Ukraine against Russian incursion.

And Russia has appeared to exert influence over the democratic process in other ways. The hack of the Democratic National Committee is widely considered, within the U.S. intelligence community, to have been the work of the Russian government. Further, Wikileaks, which is suspected of having ties to Russia, has been working overtime on behalf of Trump, taunting the release of materials that would be damaging to Clinton’s campaign and even, on Twitter (before deleting it), taking a poll of which illness people thought Clinton was suffering from.

A spokesperson for Trump attempted to quell concerns about his RT appearance—during which he criticized the American media and said claims that the Russians were meddling in the election were probably just Democratic talking points—by making the dubious claim that Trump simply didn’t know the show was for Russian state television, but thought it was for King’s podcast. Then Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said the appearance was just a “favor” to his longtime friend, whose CNN show he frequented.

King could not be reached for an interview as of press time, but in response to questions about his association with RT, he’s often claimed that he is not employed by the network and they simply license his material. That doesn’t explain why King stars in at least two ads for the network, where he says the network’s slogan. King’s publicist was unaware of the ads when asked about them.

One former RT America anchor, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said King’s claim of independence from RT is suspicious, given his chummy relationship with the Russian news director.

When the former anchor was at RT, King taped his show “a few doors down” from the news director’s office. “They meet and they talk,” the former anchor said. In King’s interview with Trump, King asked questions that were, in the former anchor’s telling, “questions that I would’ve been asked to ask if I was interviewing a congressman or something like that.”

Before King came onboard, the former anchor remembered, “It was kind of like a rumor he was coming on and we were all like, ‘What? Why would Larry King come here?’ It makes no sense.”

The former anchor said, “The Russian news director, I remember he was really, really excited to get him on board.”

For RT, King’s decision to associate with the network was “like Christmas.”

“A big part of the strategy is to use American voices to spread these pro-Kremlin messages or point out U.S. hypocrisy,” the former anchor said. “So, if you have someone like Larry King do that, it really adds legitimacy… The whole thing with RT is kind of, like, using U.S. officials and U.S. media figures.”

Still, Trump’s greatest defender was not a member of his campaign staff or an outside surrogate. It was his onetime enemy, Schultz.

“It should be pointed out that the Clinton campaign has refused interviews on RT America,” Schultz said in a homemade video he posted online. “This is manufactured news by the Clinton campaign to vilify Donald Trump and connect him to Vladimir Putin, and that’s their strategy to win the election.”

He added, “It is so sad and so small and so elementary and I think it’s hurting Hillary Clinton, which I think is even more than sad.”

Meanwhile, Schultz was deciding whether or not to change his mind about canceling our interview.

“Let me think on it,” he said. “I don’t need the story. I do this job because I love it, not to be the focus of some story.”

He then told me he could be found at the White House, where liberal activists were protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.

He stood on the grass outside the protest in a pinstripe suit and royal blue shirt, talking on the phone.

 He is a tall and broad figure, with rust-colored hair and small blue eyes that fight against his fleshy eyelids to make contact with the world.

“I’m sorry that it kinda worked out that way,” he said about the inconvenience. He claimed it was his decision to cancel the interview, not RT’s. “I have to respect the people I’m working for,” he said.

He stared off at the protest, a troubled look on his face. “Our world is fucked up, isn’t it?” he asked.

He said he’d recently taken a “chance” by talking to The Washington Post, but was unhappy with the attention in the end—though he wouldn’t divulge why, or if it had led to trouble at RT. “I’m just at a point in time in my career where I just, I don’t need any publicity,” he said. “I do this job ’cause I love it. I’ve never really figured out why the media covers the media, you know? I’m a reporter just like you are.”

Just then a protester approached with a stack of signs and asked if Schultz would like one. “No, thank you, sir,” Schultz said. The protester looked at him skeptically. “Your days of signs are over?” he asked. Schultz laughed through a frown. “No, it’s not over,” he said.

Asked if it bothered him when he was criticized for working for what almost everyone outside of the Russian government believes is a propaganda network, Schultz said, “Well, it doesn’t bother me because I know it’s not the truth, you know? There’s so much in the media that’s not the truth. You know, so I go with what I know and I go with my instincts and I go with the facts.”

Schultz emphasized that he’s now “in a totally different role than what I was doing at MSNBC. I was doing an opinion show. I’m a nightly news anchor now, I don’t—if you watch my show, at 8 o’clock—I don’t give opinions.” Although, he was eager to give his critical opinion of Clinton after Trump’s RT interview proved controversial.

Still, Schultz called the alleged change “rather refreshing,” and said the reason he didn’t seek out a job on another American network was because he wanted to do something different and he didn’t want to rival MSNBC, where he said he still has a lot of friends.

“I feel very comfortable about being fair to Trump,” he said, “I think I’ve been very fair to him.”

Reminded how much he used to hate Trump, Schultz said, “Um, well, then I guess that kind of shows my opinions aren’t getting in the way, right?”

Suddenly, a look of concern spread across Schultz’s face.

He never wanted to be interviewed, he said, and despite giving a reporter his location and answering questions for several minutes, he didn’t want to be quoted. He grew incensed and accusatory, but then seemed to try to calm himself by saying he was comfortable with everything he had said on the record.

He said he didn’t want to answer any more questions, but then he ran after me, in a state of total panic.

“I’m asking you professionally to not write anything about me,” he said.

Informed that I couldn’t promise that, since I was there talking to him to report a story partially about him—something he knew—his face turned red.

He moved closer and stared into my eyes, and then he screamed at me, divulging something personal and wholly unrelated to both RT and the conflict at hand.

“This is a hit job, I know it is!” he screamed again.

Later, in an email, he said, “I’m on record asking you not to do s story on me. I did not know I was being recorded. I don’t want any coverage . I’m professionally asking you to not write about me.

Thank you Ed [sic].”

A few hours later, he called my phone and hung up.

Josh Barro to the GOP: "Fuck this I'm out"....

By Josh Barro

The most important thing we have learned this year is that when the Republican Party was hijacked by a dangerous fascist who threatens to destroy the institutions that make America great and free, most Republicans up and down the organizational chart stood behind him and insisted he ought to be president.

Some did this because they are fools who do not understand why Trump is dangerous.

Some did it because they were naïve enough to believe he could be controlled and manipulated into implementing a normal Republican agenda.

Of course, there were the minority of Republicans who did what was right and withheld their support from Trump: people like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Hewlett-Packard CEO and megadonor Meg Whitman, with her calling Trump "a threat to the survival of the republic."

I want to focus on a fourth group: Republican politicians who understand exactly how dangerous Donald Trump is but who have chosen to support him anyway for reasons of strategy, careerism, or cowardice.

Cowards and scoundrels

I am talking, for example, about Sen. Marco Rubio, who in the primary called Trump an "erratic individual" who must not be trusted with nuclear weapons — and then endorsed him for president.
I am talking about Sen. Ted Cruz, who called Trump a "pathological liar" and "utterly amoral" — and then endorsed him for president, even though Trump never apologized for threatening to "spill the beans" on Cruz's wife and suggesting Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Most of all, I'm talking about House Speaker Paul Ryan, a man whose pained, blue eyes suggest he desperately wants to cry for help. He's a man who runs around the country pathetically trying to pretend that Trump does not exist and that the key issue is his congressional caucus' "Better Way" agenda. And he's a man who, of his own free will, seeks to help Donald Trump become president.

These men are not fools like Ben Carson.

US Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Thomson Reuters

To borrow a phrase from Rubio, they know exactly what they are doing: They are taking an action that risks the destruction of the American republic to advance their personal interests.

They know what Whitman knows about the risks Trump poses to America. Rubio himself warned specifically of the risk of Trump starting a nuclear war! But they do not care.

I can conclude from the available evidence only that they love their careers more than they love America. And they are why I quit the Republican Party this week.

Why I was a Republican

I'm not a conservative. I know a lot of you already thought my Republican affiliation was a trolling exercise, and honestly, my registration change was probably overdue.

I became a Republican as a teenager because of my upbringing in Massachusetts, a state where the GOP has produced five good governors in my lifetime, from Bill Weld (now the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential nominee) to Charlie Baker. I worked for Mitt Romney when he ran for governor, and while I did not like his presidential campaigns, I think he has a record in Massachusetts he can be proud of.

All four living current and former Republican governors of Massachusetts oppose Trump.

I stayed a Republican because of my background working in state and local government finance, a policy area where a well-functioning Republican Party can bring important restraint. I have voted Republican, for example, in each of the past three New York City mayoral races.

I don't think it was ridiculous to be in a party that I disagreed with on a lot of national issues. Change is made through party coalitions, and I thought the Republican Party was where I was more likely to be able to improve ideas at the margin in the long run. Being a member of a party does not obligate you to vote for its bad candidates in the meantime.

But what this election has made clear is that policy is not the most important problem with the Republican Party.

Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska at the CPAC conference for conservatives in March. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

The GOP was vulnerable to hacking

The Republican Party had a fundamental vulnerability: Because of the fact-free environment so many of its voters live in, and because of the anti-Democrat hysteria that had been willfully whipped up by so many of its politicians, it was possible for the party to be taken over by a fascist promising revenge.

And because there are only two major parties in the United States, and either of the parties' nominees can become president, such vulnerability in the Republican Party constitutes vulnerability in our democracy.

I can't be a part of an organization that creates that kind of risk.

What parties are for

My editor asked why I became a Democrat instead of an independent. I did that because I believe political parties are key vehicles for policy making, and choosing not to join one is choosing to give up influence.

I agree with Sasse, the senator from Nebraska, that parties exist in service of policy ends and that loyalty to the party should be contingent on whether loyalty serves those ends. Because of this, it is worth joining a party even if you do not intend to be a partisan, and even if you will often oppose what the party does.

Sasse was one of the earliest and loudest voices of resistance to Trump in the Republican Party, and after the intra-GOP civil war that is sure to ensue from Trump's loss, I wonder whether he will decide remaining in the GOP does a service to the ends he cares about.

Sasse is a lot more conservative than I am, so I don't expect him to become a Democrat. It makes sense for people like him and Kasich to try, after the election, to wrest control of the party away from the conspiracy nuts and proto-fascists.

But I believe they will fail. And I'm not going to stick around to watch.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article said Ted Cruz had called Donald Trump a "con artist." It was Marco Rubio who called him that. It's become difficult to keep track of which Trump endorsers said which things about Trump's manifest unfitness to be president.
 

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.

The Simulacron

Trump Is Already Guilty Of Aiding Putin's Attack On America

The Trump-Russia scandal is the subject of multiple investigations that may or may not unearth new revelations, but this much is already certain:

Donald Trump is guilty.

‘Tiny hand clenched on top’: Internet hilariously mocks Trump for plagiarizing his family coat of arms

                

Trump family coat of arms (Photo: Janet Hudson/Flickr)

By Sarah K. Burris

News broke Monday that President Donald Trump appears to have plagiarized his family coat of arms that appears outside of the Trump National Golf Club outside of Washington. This weekend the Senior PGA Championship was hosted at the golf club and the “Trump family coat of arms” was featured on signs all over.

The actual emblem features three lions and two chevrons on a shield with a gloved hand gripping an arrow or spear, The New York Times reported. The coat of arms was originally granted by British authorities in 1939 to Joseph Edward Davies. He was the third husband of Marjorie Merriweather Post, the man who built the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Ironically, he once served as the ambassador to the former Soviet Union.

The Trump Organization staged a hostile takeover of the coat of arms and replaced the Latin word for “integrity” with “Trump.”

Davies grandson Joseph D. Tydings, a former U.S. state senator from Maryland, admitted there are members of his family who are ready to sue Trump, but he cautioned against it. Tydings once worked for a large firm that managed Trump. He told his family that the suit would end up costing generations after them money.

“This is the first I’ve ever heard about it being used anywhere else,” Tydings said of the coat of arms placement at the northern resort.

When Trump tried to bring the American version to Scotland for his new development the authorities refused to allow the usage.

The Internet was not necessarily surprised by Trump stealing the coat of arms. Instead of encouraging the lawsuit, the Internet sought mockery instead:

@BraddJaffy Shall we talk about his fake ancestry in light of his "Pocahontas" jabs now?

— Gavin Ivester (@gavinivester) May 29, 2017

@LorraineRogerso @BraddJaffy He really thinks he can just do what he wants, when he wants, wherever he wants.

— Rob McDowall (@robmcd85) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy In a Trump v Garter King of Arms dust up I know who I'm backing pic.twitter.com/HPWbp5mFEb

— Dr Paul Coxon (@paulcoxon) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy @KenShepherd Love the tiny hand clenched on top

— dan klyn (@danklyn) May 29, 2017

@TanyaCrosse @BraddJaffy then try this pic.twitter.com/CWkkbPSUWe

— (((Dave McKinnon))) (@DaveMcKinnon__) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy He tried leaving "integrity" on there but the letters kept falling off!

— Gail Earle (@earle_gail) May 29, 2017

.@BraddJaffy when you're a star, you can *try to* get away with anything https://t.co/ygKLpCf2u7

— Wesley Rizal (@wrizal) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy This couldn't be more Trump, this is Trump, this is so perfect

— Diane Bruce Anstine (@dganstine) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy "Trump Org created Civil War memorial…commemorating a battle & “river of blood” that never occurred, a plaque marking the fictitious event…"

— Bill Kendrick (@billkendrick) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy He likely found the exceptionally tiny hand holding the spear appealing.

— Lucky Dog Hot Sauce (@luckydoghot) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy He probably thinks it was a gift with purchase of Mar A Lago.

— Michelle Bhasin (@michellebhasin) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy Why so surprised? He's taken a country as his own without permission and changed "United" to "Mine mine mine mine mine".

— VeracityCat (@Lexicologist) May 29, 2017

@BraddJaffy Further proof the man has not an original idea in his spray-tanned, wig adorned body. #MAGA #drainthetrump

— Jesus McAmerican (@Jesus_McAmerica) May 29, 2017

I can't think of a better metaphor for Trump admin. He stole his coat of arms from someone else but replaced INTEGRITY w/ TRUMP on it–> https://t.co/Oi1CQ8Q8z5

— Jesse Ferguson (@JesseFFerguson) May 28, 2017

A herald at the College of Arms, near St. Paul's, helped me find the original coat of arms used by Trump, registered to Joseph Davies. pic.twitter.com/zMTUkGXeA0

— Danny Hakim (@dannyhakim) May 28, 2017

@realDonaldTrump – I propose using the following image for the Trump family coat of arms. pic.twitter.com/w3lOLr9URm

— Punkkitty312 (@PunkKitty312) May 29, 2017

Early study of a heraldic weasel for true Trump family coat of arms pic.twitter.com/ykhY8wbxpF

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 29, 2017

Disgusting #Trump stole his coat of arms from someone else. Time to depeech! pic.twitter.com/NswLIho4Dm

— Normal Derek Nason (@dereknason) May 29, 2017

Kushner's Charmed Life Comes To A Screeching Halt

By Taegan Goddard

Walter Shapiro: “Even under the benign theory that Kushner thought that a secret back channel was like a small boy’s tin-can telephone, his life in the coming months and maybe years will be a study in misery. He will probably spend more time with his personal lawyer, Clinton Justice Department veteran Jamie Gorelick, than with Ivanka or his children. Whether it is an appearance under oath on Capitol Hill or the inevitable FBI interview, every sentence Kushner utters will bring with it possible legal jeopardy.”

“Kushner may have once thought that he established his tough-guy credentials when he stared down angry creditors and impatient bankers over his ill-timed 2007 purchase of a $1.8bn Fifth Avenue office building. But the worst thing that can happen to an over-leveraged real estate investor (as Trump himself knows well) is bankruptcy. When the FBI and special prosecutor Robert Mueller get involved, the penalties can theoretically involve steel bars locking behind you.”

Crooks and blackguards should never seek political office

By MineralMan

Miscreants are beginning to learn what happens when one moves into the public political sector. Once you do that, you expose yourself to a microscopic inspection of every detail of your lives. It starts with the media and can shift into law enforcement territory. Things you have done that would have escaped scrutiny in the business world suddenly become of great interest to one and all.

If the underbelly of your operations is caked with muck and excrement from being dragged through untold swamps and garbage pits, all of that will be fodder for the investigators, who now have unlimited access to your every action and subterfuge. Your illegal doings, fraudulent activities and supposedly hidden communications will now see the light of day.

This is why crooks and blackguards should never seek political office. As long as they avoid public scrutiny, they can often carry on with impunity. But, as soon as they are elected by the people, interest in them increases and investigations begin apace, both official and unofficial. Everything will be turned over and what's underneath will be analyzed.

It was not a good idea, Mr. Trump, to run for President and win. Not a good idea at all. Now, everyone around you is subject to close inspection and examination. Some, who you thought were loyal to you, may not be as stalwart as you believed. Once your carefully knitted story begins to unravel, the truth will eventually emerge.

Prepare yourself, Donald, to be fully exposed. Fear is appropriate at this time.

Mexican Lawyer Markets Trump Toilet Paper

Free advice to Trump

By Michael Smerconish, Inquirer Columnist

Welcome home, Mr. President.  Happy Memorial Day weekend, and congratulations on an international trip free of major faux pas. Almost forgotten is that within minutes of your wheels-up departure from the United States more than a week ago came yet another revelation pertaining to Russia and the election. It remains to be seen whether you can keep some positive momentum going from your recent voyage. Let me help by giving you some unsolicited advice, pro bono. I don’t know if you’re not getting good counsel, or are ignoring the good counsel you are receiving, but I’m going to assume it’s the former.

First, Robert Mueller’s appointment is the official statement of official Washington that if you broke the law, you’re out, one way or another: impeachment, indictment, or cabinet removal under the 25^th Amendment.

I don’t know if you have broken the law, meaning whether you have impeded official investigations, but I don’t agree with you that this is a “witch hunt.” Not when former CIA chief John Brennan last week testified to the House intelligence committee: “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”

Brennan aside, there was already enough evidence relating to Michael Flynn and the Russians to warrant the extraordinary act of the appointment of Mueller as special counsel. After all:

You fired the person who was investigating Flynn (and maybe yourself) after you allegedly first asked that investigator (former FBI Director James Comey) for a loyalty pledge over a Jan. 27 one-on-one dinner at the White House, according to the New York Times.

Then two weeks later, on Feb. 14, according to the Times, and allegedly supported by a contemporaneous memo Comey wrote, you dismissed Vice President Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the Oval Office before asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn by saying, “I hope you can let this go.”

And despite your initial contention that you’d relied on a May 9 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that discussed Comey’s handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton, we know from your Comey termination letter of the same date that you very much had Russia on your mind (“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation…”).

Then in March, according to the Washington Post, you urged Adm. Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, and Daniel Coats, the director of National Intelligence, to “push back” against an FBI inquiry into possible coordination between Russia and your presidential campaign.

The Post said that both refused and at least one of them, Rogers, had his version recorded in a contemporaneous memo. Further, according to the Post, “…senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn.”

That sounds awfully like President Richard Nixon conspiring with chief of staff H.R. Haldeman to get the CIA to persuade the FBI to stop its probe of Watergate.

And of course, just as you departed for Saudi Arabia, the New York Times reported that you told the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the United States on May 10 in the Oval Office that Comey was a “nut job,” and that his termination would relieve “great pressure,” a revelation that your White House did not deny in its written response.

Taken together, that sounds like the behavior of someone impeding an official investigation. And you can’t make what has happened go away. Not by tweeting. Not by rallying the base or having your allies in Congress or the conservative media complain.

We’re beyond that now. You need to hire a criminal defense lawyer and follow that lawyer’s advice, which will no doubt include restraint. You also need to engage a political adviser who will stand up to you — and tell you when you are wrong — and you need to follow that advice.

The road ahead is pretty clear: It is nearly certain that the truth will come out. Mueller is a straight-shooter who will get to the bottom of this, and if you committed crimes, you will be removed. But I’m not prejudging you. It’s premature and inappropriate to talk about initiating impeachment.

Even if you get past your legal issues, the way — the only way — to save your presidency is to stop talking about this issue, stop being controlled by impulse and instead be governed by discretion and the law. Assuming you do not become legally entangled, your presidency can be rescued. After all, President Ronald Reagan faced many dark days in his second term in relation to the Iran-contra scandal, but he got through it by focusing on his work, not complaining, and maintaining discipline.

And pretty much the same thing happened with President Bill Clinton, though that scandal was different.

You can pull out of the downward spiral.  But only if you have it in you to stay focused, stay on message, and follow the rules, the law, and good advice.

Michael Smerconish can be heard 9 a.m. to noon on SiriusXM’s POTUS Channel 124. He hosts Smerconish at 9 a.m. Saturdays on CNN.

Donny Goes To School

During a special trip to an elementary school, Trump reads an incredible book to the students and runs his immigration policy by his new pals.

 

White House Admits Trump Lied About Bringing Back Coal Jobs

The White House's real position on bringing back coal jobs was revealed after Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn made it clear in a meeting with reporters that coal isn't even good feedstock anymore, and the future of American energy is in natural gas, solar, and wind.

By Jason Easley

Here is what Cohn told reporters according to The White House Press Pool:


Cohn’s comments are the opposite of what Trump promised during the campaign when he said, “We’re going to get those miners back to work … the miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week, Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me.

They are going to be proud again to be miners.”

The truth is that the coal jobs are gone, and they aren’t coming back. Trump lied to former and current coal miners in places like West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Western Pennsylvania.

Coal company bankruptcies and job losses in the Appalachian region weren’t caused by “federal regulations” as the company owners and Republicans like to claim. Automation within the industry, the natural gas boom, and declining international demand for coal are the real reasons behind the decline.

It was a rare moment of truth from the Trump administration that is likely to be walked back by the White House. The coal jobs aren’t coming back. Trump’s advisers know this even as the President continues to sell a fantasy to a depressed economic region of a coal based revival that is never going to come.

Greg Gianforte cited for 'body slamming' reporter on eve of election

U.S. House candidate Greg Gianforte has been cited for assaulting a reporter from the Guardian at the Republican's campaign headquarters in Bozeman, Montana.

Gianforte was cited for misdemeanor assault, according to the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office.

In a recording of the incident, Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs said he was "body-slammed" by Gianforte and wanted to call police.

A Fox News TV crew in the room reported seeing Gianforte grab Jacobs by the neck and slam him to the ground.



http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/greg-gianforte-cited-for-body-slamming-reporter-on-eve-of/article_3a6bf896-6c25-5dd9-a4b8-d7e097a950e4.html 

Government of the Sick Fucks, by the Sick Fucks, and for the Sick Fucks

Posted by Rude One

There is a genre of news story lately that has gotten old really damn fast. It's the "Hey, here's a fucking dumbass who voted for Trump and is now gonna be fucked by him" variety. Essentially, a diligent reporter goes to some shitty place, finds one or more of the aforementioned dumbasses, and gets them to say something along the lines of "Well, Trump's budget and health care plan will leave me dying of cancer in a ditch while my Congress member pisses on me, but I still support my president."

For instance, on CNN, we meet Barbara Puckett of Beattyville, Kentucky, which is the deepest shithole for white people in the nation. Puckett's got sclerosis and is on Social Security disability and food stamps, both of which are on the cutting board in Donald Trump's savage budget. But she's not abandoning her man: ""I am still happy with President Trump," she said.

AP reporters headed out across the country to talk to a spectrum of people, from white idiots in New York to white morons in Georgia to white dolts in Iowa. They all agree that they couldn't give a happy monkey fuck about the stories about Trump and Russia. It's all lies or bullshit, they say. Or you just ignore it, as one Staten Island hairdresser said, "I didn’t want to be depressed. I don’t want to feel that he’s not doing what he said, so I just choose to not listen." A college student there offered his support by saying, "If you’re wishing for him to fail, you’re basically wishing for the pilot of the plane to crash." To which one could point out that if the pilot doesn't know how to fly the plane, all the wishing in the world ain't gonna help you.

(To be vaguely fair, one of the Staten Islanders did get off a decent joke. When asked if anything could turn him against Trump, a man replied, "If he gases his own people, yeah, I would be against him," which, c'mon, is kind of funny. Well, until Trump starts gassing Brooklyn.)

Back in April, Nicholas Kristof wrote about a whole bunch of Americans who will suffer if even a fraction of Trump's budget were to be passed (which, let's face it, is the goal in putting out such a nut-punchingly vicious document). They include a 70-year-old woman in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who is dependent on a job from the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which Trump has proposed slashing. She voted for the president because "he was talking about getting rid of those illegals," of course. If the program is cut, she said, "I’ll sit home and die."

But like almost everyone in these stories, she says she would vote for Trump in 2020. That's just sick. These are sick fucks who don't care if the god they worship wants to kill them.

The best mark in a con is the kind who doesn't believe they've been conned, even when the con is revealed. Either they are so embarrassed that it's easier just to double down on the delusion or they're that fucking stupid. And, in the end, it doesn't matter because they'll line up to be fleeced again.

Another genre of news story is of the wishful thinking variety. They say things like "Trump's Budget Cuts Target His Voters" or "Wait Until Trump's Supporters See the Size of the Dildo He's Fucking Them With" or "Man, Grandpa's Gonna Be Mad When He Catches Trump Stabbing His Grandkids." And they all posit a fantasy that Trump will cross some line, be it with health care or other cuts, or even in his canoodling with Russia, that will make his followers turn against him.

It's the same sort of hoping without any evidence that got us Trump in the first place. I've said it before: Fuck the dumbasses. The hell with the sick fucks. Don't court them. Don't count on them. Build up the outreach to the people who didn't vote. And then get elected and pass programs that help the dumbasses and everyone else.

300 of the 800 Jobs That Trump “Saved” At Carrier Plant Are Now Moving To Mexico

By Jason Easley on Tue, May 23rd, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Donald Trump championed the 1,100 jobs he saved at a Carrier plant in Indiana, but the real number of jobs saved was 800, and now out of those 800, 300 are moving to Mexico by Christmas, so Carrier got a $7 million taxpayer handout and still shipped jobs to Mexico.

CNN reported, “Donald Trump may have convinced Carrier not to move its Indianapolis furnace plant to Mexico. But the company is still shipping about 300 of its jobs to Mexico right before Christmas. In a formal notice to the state of Indiana, the company detailed its plans to eliminate 338 jobs at the plant on July 20, four supervisor jobs in October and a final 290 jobs on Dec. 22.”

The Carrier deal was a PR scam.

The pro-Trump messaging behind the deal quickly fell apart when it was revealed that only 800 jobs, not 1,100 would be saved. The number was then reduced to 730 jobs that would be saved.

There was a reason why Trump never got a guarantee that the jobs were going to stay in the United States, because the jobs were always destined to go to Mexico or go away. Carrier is a classic example of why Trump will never be able to restore America’s manufacturing sector to its past glory.

Many more of the Carrier jobs that are staying in the US are going to be gone in the future because more factories are moving towards automation. The biggest threat to US manufacturing sector jobs isn’t in a foreign country. It’s technology.

The Carrier scheme was always a fraud that designed to give a corporation millions of dollars while making it look like Trump was saving jobs, but just like everything else in the Trump presidency, the talk never matches the action.

Great news for African American voters in North Carolina!

Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina congressional district maps

Then And Now

Karma! Michael Flynn, Mister 'Lock Her Up,' Takes The Fifth

Trump Completes First Leg Of World Hypocrisy Tour

Trump accused of rank hypocrisy in Saudi Arabia

Donald Trump appears to 'curtsey' to Saudi king after mocking Barack Obama for bowing

On Islam, Trump is consistently inconsistent

Donald Trump drops out of Saudi Arabia event due to 'exhaustion'