Saturday, June 3, 2017

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.

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.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

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

By







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.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio looks on during an official photo with Honduran Attorney General Oscar Chinchilla (not pictured) at the attorney's facilities in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on May 31, 2016. REUTERS/Jorge Cabrera/File Photo 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.

ben sasse 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


Tuesday, May 30, 2017

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.

Monday, May 29, 2017

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

                
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:

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.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Mexican Lawyer Markets Trump Toilet Paper

Free advice to Trump


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 25th 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.
 

Saturday, May 27, 2017

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.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

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 

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

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



Tuesday, May 23, 2017

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


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

Monday, May 22, 2017

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'

Destiny 2 is leading to gold deflation in World of Warcraft

Real-world value of in-game gold dips 7 percent since Battle.net announcement.

Careful, friend... while you were sleeping, the real-world value of that gold pile just went down a bit.
Activision's decision to sell Destiny 2 through Blizzard's Battle.net (or the Blizzard app, if you insist on calling it that) is already having ripple effects throughout the platform. Look no further than World of Warcraft, where the real-world value of in-game gold has sunk quickly in the wake of the announcement, according to the tracker at WoWToken.info.

The in-game auction price of a WoW Token—which can be exchanged for $15 in credit on other Battle.net games—settled at around 120,000 gold pieces on North American servers this morning.

That's up from a price of about 110,000 gold pieces just before the Destiny 2 announcement threw the market into turmoil, causing the Token price to briefly spike to over 140,000 gold on Thursday evening.

The result looks to be about a 7 percent decline in the real-world buying power of a piece of WoW gold in less than a week. Put another way, the functional price of a $60 copy of Destiny 2 in WoW gold jumped from just under 450,000 gold pieces to just over 480,000 in a matter of days. An incredibly focused, min-maxing gold farmer could still earn that gold in a month or two of dedicated WoW play, though.
While WoW Token prices show minor fluctuations throughout each day, the last time the market saw this much turbulence was back in February, when Blizzard first allowed Tokens to be sold for Battle.net credit. Before that, Tokens could only be used to purchase World of Warcraft subscription time and were considered much less valuable at the in-game auction markets.
 Since the change, the in-game value of a Token has slowly grown about 22 percent over the course of about three months, from about 90,000 gold pieces on February 15 up to about 110,000 last week.

Looked at another way, the Destiny announcement condensed about a month's worth of "natural" gold deflation into a single weekend.

As Bungie rolls out suspected plans for microtransaction-based purchases in Destiny 2, we may see in-game demand for the WoW Token increase even further in the coming months. If you're looking to trade one video game addiction for another, we recommend trading in that WoW loot for pre-emptive Destiny funds sooner rather than later.