1. Update on the hiring of Russian guards for our embassy in Moscow. (Wed, 11/15 #6) NYT explains that Putin's retaliatory order that we reduce our embassy staff by 755 explains the need to hire local guards. Also a spokesperson for the State Department said that they would would be used primarily for things like registration of visitors and would not be allowed into sensitive areas. And the "no-bid" contract: Several U.S. companies had turned down contract offers. Am I completely reassured? No.
2. In a referendum on same-sex marriage, the Australian people voted 62% to 38% in favor. Almost 80% of voting age Australians took part in the survey. This referendum is non-binding and was initiated by Prime Minister Turnbull, who wanted to put pressure on conservatives in Parliament to change the law. Liberals believe they have enough votes in the Senate to pass it, and then it will be up to Parliament.
3. Two cheers for Jeff Sessions. There's so much negative to say about the Attorney General, his selectively faulty memory and his draconian retreat to the ugly past; but here's one hope that he will stand up for Justice's independence. In his Monday hearing, he held firm against Republicans' pressure to commit to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton. Ticking off the Republican talking points (mostly false or distorted), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, "It sure looks like" collusion between Clinton and the FBI. Sessions shot back: "'Looks like' is not enough," and then explained that career Justice Department officers will examine the charges, the evidence, and make a determination whether there is "probable cause" to open an investigation. Pressed on the issue, Sessions said: "I will commit to follow the law and to carry out my duties as Attorney General." His tone suggested that he does not expect there will be probable cause.
4. Jared Kushner made an unannounced trip to Saudi Arabia in late October and reportedly stayed up until 4 AM talking with the Crown Prince at his ranch. The two are close to the same age and seem to have formed a bond during two prior visits. Only days later, the Crown Prince, who seems more and more to be taking over the reins of government from his aging father, began a crack-down on "corruption." In all, 11 other princes and some 200 business elites were arrested and are still being held in captivity in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Riyadh (some hardship!). Many questions remain. Is this legitimate "cleaning house" or a bold consolidation of power in anticipation of his soon becoming the King? White House sources said that the Prince gave Kushner no "heads up" about the coming crack down. Nevertheless, President Trump was quick to praise, tweeting: "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia; they know exactly what they're doing. . . . Some of those they are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years." The Saudis are long-standing allies of the U.S., but they are also destabilizing the region with their war on Yemen and leading the blockade of Qatar. But they are bitter enemies of our enemy, Iran, which backs the rebels in Yemen. And there are some who fear that the Crown Prince may be ramping up for a war with Iran. Let's hope that Jared Kushner didn't promise that we would help -- or was it perhaps his mission to bring a message from Trump encouraging a war?
5. A merger between Time-Warner and AT-T is in the works, and it is raising concerns over whether a merger of the two communications giants would constitute an unacceptable monopoly through reduction in competition. The decision whether to block it will go through the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. But questions are being raised about whether Trump's Justice Department can be impartial, given his repeated attacks on the media and, in particular on CNN, which is owned by Time-Warner. Reportedly the Antitrust Division has asked them to sell CNN as a condition for approval of the merger. It's a good question. I'm personally very opposed to the consolidation of our news sources under control of a few powerful corporations. So I would oppose the merger on those grounds without knowing the particulars. But I also oppose meddling in such decisions for political purposes. And there's plenty of reason to suspect this cannot be non-politically motivated in a Trump administration.
6. The House passed it's tax bill. I haven't been getting into details about this, because this won't be the final version. The Senate is working on its own bill -- and they may not be able to pass it anyway. So I'll just say that everything we hear about both versions is bad, really bad. It so clearly is a transfer of wealth upward, from the middle class to the superwealthy; and they are doing it at the bidding of their few, very wealthy, top donors who are demanding the tax cuts. At the same time, they're piously proclaiming that it helps the working class families. One estimate has the Trump family saving about $1 billion over 10 years, while anyone making less than $75,000/year will pay increased taxes by the end of the decade. And for good measure, at the very last minute, the Senate threw in eliminating the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, which will raise premiums on others, while 19 million will lose insurance. Another outrage: graduate students will now be taxed on the value of tuition grants they receive -- all in order to give tax cuts to billionaires.
7. Sexual assault charges continue to expand: I believe the count of women accusing Roy Moore is now up to nine. And now Sen. Al Franken has been named as having inappropriate sexual behavior with a fellow comedian during a USO tour back in 2006 before he entered politics. The accusations are of an inappropriate tongue kiss during rehearsal for a skit that actually involved a kiss (but which Franken had apparently written into the script himself) and later taking a photo of her while she was asleep on the plane, with Franken's hands covering her breasts (thought maybe not actually touching them), which was later circulated among those on the trip. Franken had treated it all as a joke at the time. Following the accuser's coming forward, he issued a sincere apology, which included an acknowledgement and an indication that he realizes now the seriousness of his acts and that it was not funny. She has accepted his apology and says it was not her intent to have him resign from the Senate. However, others, including several women senators and journalists, have called on him to resign.
Without wanting to minimize the inappropriateness of Franken's act or the suffering and humiliation experienced by his accuser -- I am concerned that, by putting all acts together under one rubric of "sexual assault," we muddy the distinction between heinous crimes like rape and child abuse, on the one hand; a pattern of persistent sexual harassment and dominating behavior, on another hand; and inappropriate pranks and overly aggressive sexual advances, on the other. Don't misunderstand. They are all wrong, all abuses of power; but perhaps we need some way of distinguishing the degree of offense. A New York Times article, just out, makes a distinction between a pattern of sexual abuse and a mistake.
Al Franken and Roy Moore both have done bad things to women (although so far only one has accused Franken); but Franken and Moore are not the same kind of men, their offenses are not the same, and their consequences do not deserve the same level of severity. In his written apology, Franken has called for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate himself. Moore is still denying all and accusing the accusers of lying and faking his signature.
And then there's Donald Trump.
Ralph
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Friday, November 17, 2017
Russia collusion investigation heats up. Two new developments
1. Mueller issued subpoenas to the Trump campaign. That actually occurred last month, but it has just become public knowledge. We knew that requests for documents had been made, but now we learn that 10 top officials were included in the subpoena demand for documents with key words related to Russia.
2. Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Firestein, top Republican and top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have taken the very unusual step of publicly announcing that Jared Kushner has withheld from their committee documents related to his communications with WikiLeaks late in the 2016 campaign.
Kushner has a pattern of not being forthcoming until his omissions are pointed out. He did this on his security clearance application and on other requests from other investigative committees. So it may just be a matter of now he'll give it to them, claiming that they hadn't really asked specifically for communications with WikiLeaks.
We'll see. It's being given headline status in the news. At the least, it shows impatience and displeasure with Kushner that Grassley and Firestein took this step of exposing his withholding to the public.
Ralph
2. Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Firestein, top Republican and top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have taken the very unusual step of publicly announcing that Jared Kushner has withheld from their committee documents related to his communications with WikiLeaks late in the 2016 campaign.
Kushner has a pattern of not being forthcoming until his omissions are pointed out. He did this on his security clearance application and on other requests from other investigative committees. So it may just be a matter of now he'll give it to them, claiming that they hadn't really asked specifically for communications with WikiLeaks.
We'll see. It's being given headline status in the news. At the least, it shows impatience and displeasure with Kushner that Grassley and Firestein took this step of exposing his withholding to the public.
Ralph
A dilemma for Republicans
OK, so now most of the Republicans -- the ones outside Alabama anyway -- are coming around to saying that they believe the women accusing Roy Moore and therefore they're calling on him to drop out of the race.
But what about the dozen-plus women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault? We even have the audio tape of Trump confessing to how he can just grab women, and they let you do anything when you're a star?
Why are they dismissed as "liars" -- all of them -- and not believed? Is it just that Moore was going after teen age girls, while Trump assaulted grown women? But what about Trump's self-described barging into the dressing rooms at teen-age beauty pageants, where teen age girls were in various stages of undress -- just because he could, as the pageant owner? Does that count as sexual assault?
Maybe. Or maybe this is all really about politics. Until they get their tax cut bill passed, they need that 52nd Republican vote. But it doesn't have to be Roy Moore. Someone less "colorful" would do them more good.
Of course, their dream solution, which would solve two problems, is to somehow get Jeff Sessions out of the AG chair and back into his old senate chair -- so Trump can appoint a new AG that he can bend to his will and make Mueller's investigation go away. They could run Sessions as a write-in candidate; or, if Moore wins, then expel him from the Senate, and have the governor appoint Sessions.
There's one problem with that "solution." Sessions may not want to give up being Attorney General. It's his life ambition, what he's always dreamed of being. The AG has much more power to change our country than a single senator. He's already turned back the law enforcement clock by decades and made things much worse for civil rights. But he thinks he's doing great work. So he might just say No to that scheme. Then what?
But -- let's talk about our dream solution. Just let the election runs its course, with Moore as the Republican nominee -- and then have Democrat candidate Doug Jones win it outright. I think he has a good chance. Think what a Democratic win would do for the morale of the silent, suffering progressives in Alabama.
Ralph
But what about the dozen-plus women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault? We even have the audio tape of Trump confessing to how he can just grab women, and they let you do anything when you're a star?
Why are they dismissed as "liars" -- all of them -- and not believed? Is it just that Moore was going after teen age girls, while Trump assaulted grown women? But what about Trump's self-described barging into the dressing rooms at teen-age beauty pageants, where teen age girls were in various stages of undress -- just because he could, as the pageant owner? Does that count as sexual assault?
Maybe. Or maybe this is all really about politics. Until they get their tax cut bill passed, they need that 52nd Republican vote. But it doesn't have to be Roy Moore. Someone less "colorful" would do them more good.
Of course, their dream solution, which would solve two problems, is to somehow get Jeff Sessions out of the AG chair and back into his old senate chair -- so Trump can appoint a new AG that he can bend to his will and make Mueller's investigation go away. They could run Sessions as a write-in candidate; or, if Moore wins, then expel him from the Senate, and have the governor appoint Sessions.
There's one problem with that "solution." Sessions may not want to give up being Attorney General. It's his life ambition, what he's always dreamed of being. The AG has much more power to change our country than a single senator. He's already turned back the law enforcement clock by decades and made things much worse for civil rights. But he thinks he's doing great work. So he might just say No to that scheme. Then what?
But -- let's talk about our dream solution. Just let the election runs its course, with Moore as the Republican nominee -- and then have Democrat candidate Doug Jones win it outright. I think he has a good chance. Think what a Democratic win would do for the morale of the silent, suffering progressives in Alabama.
Ralph
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Republican race to the bottom
Examples are rampant of the Trump administration appointing unqualified people to important jobs. We are witnessing a truly amazing race to the bottom.
The latest example is a nominee for a lifetime federal district judge position, Brett Talley. He has practiced law for only three years and has never tried a case in court. One of his accomplishment is his blogging, in which he rails against liberals, referring to Clinton as "Hillary Rotten Clinton" and suggesting that she should be jailed.
Proponents point to his being a Harvard Law School graduate, having clerked for two federal judges, been a protege for Alabama interim senator Luther Strange, and having worked in the Justice Department office that selects judicial nominees.
The American Bar Association issues ratings of federal judicial nominees, based on their qualifications and experience. Despite the Harvard law degree, Mr. Talley was rated "not qualified" by a unanimous vote of the board.
Yet this same Brett Talley, with only three years practice and no trial experience, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and recommended to a full Senate confirmation vote for a life-time appointment as a federal district judge. All 9 Democrats on the committee voted no; all 11 Republicans voted yes. Now it's up to the full senate.
Just to put this in perspective: it was a federal district judge who issued the order that stopped the implementation of President Trump's immigration ban executive order. It is not an inconsequential position.
To be fair to the Judiciary Committee, there was also another Trump nominee for a district judgeship, who also received the ABA's "not qualified" rating; and his nomination was withdrawn. Maybe he wasn't Trumpian enough to offset the ABA's judgment.
But, think about this. Trump nominated two people for lifetime, federal judgeships who were rated Not Qualified by fellow lawyers. The ABA is a non-partisan, national association of attorneys and judges. It has no legal authority; it is offered as guidance. Ratings are based on knowledge and experience of the law and on having a judicial temperament.
This is part of a bigger, long-range problem. Trump's legal advisory team began, even before the inauguration, making a plan to fill federal judiciary vacancies with young, very conservative judges for these life-time appointments. They purposely started with the Appeals Courts and have filled eight seats so far at that level -- an unprecedented number in such a short time.
Why were so many seats empty? Because Republicans stopped holding hearings on any Obama appointments for important Appeals Court nominees two years before the end of his term -- just as they refused to even consider his Supreme Court nominee in his last year. And they got away with it.
The position that Talley is up for is one step down from the Appeals Court level at the federal district court. But their goal -- and it's perfectly legal -- is to shift the balance of the whole federal judiciary in a very conservative direction -- in the mold of Antonin Scalia, at best; but, if necessary, "unqualified" will do. For them, it's about numbers, not quality, not respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Trump has already put one young, very conservative man on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. All this talk of Trump and the Republicans getting nothing done? Not true. They are overhauling the federal judiciary -- not with right of center justices, but with far right conservatives.
Ralph
New info: Only several days after his Judiciary hearing, the news came out that Talley had failed to reveal a conflict of interest. His wife is the Chief of Staff for White House lawyer Don McGahn, who is the primary official in charge of considering potential nominees to recommend to the president. It's not just the fact of the conflict, but that he failed to disclose it on a questionnaire that specifically asks him to identify any family members that might cause conflict of interest.
The latest example is a nominee for a lifetime federal district judge position, Brett Talley. He has practiced law for only three years and has never tried a case in court. One of his accomplishment is his blogging, in which he rails against liberals, referring to Clinton as "Hillary Rotten Clinton" and suggesting that she should be jailed.
Proponents point to his being a Harvard Law School graduate, having clerked for two federal judges, been a protege for Alabama interim senator Luther Strange, and having worked in the Justice Department office that selects judicial nominees.
The American Bar Association issues ratings of federal judicial nominees, based on their qualifications and experience. Despite the Harvard law degree, Mr. Talley was rated "not qualified" by a unanimous vote of the board.
Yet this same Brett Talley, with only three years practice and no trial experience, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and recommended to a full Senate confirmation vote for a life-time appointment as a federal district judge. All 9 Democrats on the committee voted no; all 11 Republicans voted yes. Now it's up to the full senate.
Just to put this in perspective: it was a federal district judge who issued the order that stopped the implementation of President Trump's immigration ban executive order. It is not an inconsequential position.
To be fair to the Judiciary Committee, there was also another Trump nominee for a district judgeship, who also received the ABA's "not qualified" rating; and his nomination was withdrawn. Maybe he wasn't Trumpian enough to offset the ABA's judgment.
But, think about this. Trump nominated two people for lifetime, federal judgeships who were rated Not Qualified by fellow lawyers. The ABA is a non-partisan, national association of attorneys and judges. It has no legal authority; it is offered as guidance. Ratings are based on knowledge and experience of the law and on having a judicial temperament.
This is part of a bigger, long-range problem. Trump's legal advisory team began, even before the inauguration, making a plan to fill federal judiciary vacancies with young, very conservative judges for these life-time appointments. They purposely started with the Appeals Courts and have filled eight seats so far at that level -- an unprecedented number in such a short time.
Why were so many seats empty? Because Republicans stopped holding hearings on any Obama appointments for important Appeals Court nominees two years before the end of his term -- just as they refused to even consider his Supreme Court nominee in his last year. And they got away with it.
The position that Talley is up for is one step down from the Appeals Court level at the federal district court. But their goal -- and it's perfectly legal -- is to shift the balance of the whole federal judiciary in a very conservative direction -- in the mold of Antonin Scalia, at best; but, if necessary, "unqualified" will do. For them, it's about numbers, not quality, not respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Trump has already put one young, very conservative man on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. All this talk of Trump and the Republicans getting nothing done? Not true. They are overhauling the federal judiciary -- not with right of center justices, but with far right conservatives.
Ralph
New info: Only several days after his Judiciary hearing, the news came out that Talley had failed to reveal a conflict of interest. His wife is the Chief of Staff for White House lawyer Don McGahn, who is the primary official in charge of considering potential nominees to recommend to the president. It's not just the fact of the conflict, but that he failed to disclose it on a questionnaire that specifically asks him to identify any family members that might cause conflict of interest.
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
News Flash: Hannity pulls plug on Moore
Fox TV and radio talk host Sean Hannity, who was initially supportive, has given Roy Moore an ultimatum:
"For me, the judge has 24 hours. He must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies that I just showed. You must remove any doubt. If he can't do that, then Judge Moore needs to get out of this race."
"For me, the judge has 24 hours. He must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies that I just showed. You must remove any doubt. If he can't do that, then Judge Moore needs to get out of this race."
Lots of news -- in brief
Lots happening in the news.
1. Roy Moore: National Republicans are finally distancing themselves. Both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and many others in Congress, have said he should step aside. Virtually all of the senators have said, at least, "if it's true," he should. Others are dropping that qualifier and saying they believe the women and he should drop out now. Everyone's eager to see what Trump does. Moore still has a lot of support in Alabama, and some even think he can still win. Some even say, given the choice between a Democrat and a Republican pedophile, they would choose the latter. McConnell, etc. are desperately trying to figure out a way to reject Moore while still holding on to the seat, given that they would then have only a one-vote Senate majority.
2. Nominee for HHS Chair: Trump has nominated Alex Azar to replace Tom Price as head of Health and Human Services. For 10 years, Azar was a top executive for one of the major pharmaceutical companies, which is bad, when one of Trump's stated goals -- and that of the American people -- is to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. However, I have a hunch he might not be as bad as Price. He is known as an expert on government health care regulation, having worked in the George W. Bush HHS department. He's known as a problem-solver and not as an ideologue.
3. Donald Trump, Jr. was back in the headlines when it was revealed that he had previously undisclosed email exchanges with Wikileaks during later stages of the campaign, during the time of their release of DNC-hacked emails. While Wikileaks claims to be non-partisan and only concerned with full transparency and exposing government secrets, it's obvious from these messages from them to Trump, Jr. that they are supporting Trump -- asking their campaign to help publicize the site where people can read the DNC emails. Fifteen minutes after receiving such an email, not Trump, Jr. but Trump, Sr. sent out this tweet: "Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!" You only have to believe, as our intelligence chiefs do, that Russia was behind these hacks, to see this as evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign. Whether it's enough to make a case, is a question. But Mueller has much more than this.
4. Trump home from Asia trip: It was a long, and therefore risky, trip with lots of chances for our gaffe-prone president to stumble. While there were no glaring missteps, and he didn't start WW III, there is plenty for progressives and globalists to be very disturbed about, not least of which is Trump's becoming pals with the Philippine monster Duterte. Trump treated him like a new personal friend and never once mentioned the human rights abuses -- even the rampant murders of suspects by police that Duterte openly condones. Back during the campaign, Trump praised how well Duterte was "handling the drug problem" in his country -- [yeah, he just murders any suspect in the streets; it takes a little longer to go through due process.] It brings to mind Trump's campaign exhortation to a law enforcement crowd not to "be so nice" to suspects when you're taking them into custody. The world now knows how to play Trump -- you flatter him, have adoring crowds cheering him, put on a grand display of military might . . . and you have your brutal strongman become buddies with him (Putin and now Duterte).
5. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was back on the hot seat yesterday in a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee. Grilled over his ever-changing answers about his contact with Russians during the Trump campaign, he resorted to "I don't remember" dozens of times. Over several different hearings, now, his pattern is to "not remember." Then when he's presented with evidence, or someone else's testimony, then he remembers. And here's the troublesome thing: he doesn't remember that he met with a Russian or that he was in a meeting where Papadopoulos said he was in contact with Russians and could set up a meeting between Putin and Trump. Sessions "didn't remember" that meeting; but when his memory was "refreshed" by Papadopoulos' confession in his plea bargain, then Sessions remembers what he himself said in the meeting. He didn't remember meeting with the Russian ambassador; but when refreshed, then he remembers what they talked about. The other very disturbing thing to me was, when asked, he had to admit that he had not taken any action toward preventing foreign interference in our next elections, even though in a hearing months ago he had said he would.
6. Giving in to Russia: Rachel Maddow had a fascinating and chilling segment last night about Russian spying -- and our own collusion in it. She reviewed the history of their bugging our embassy in Moscow back in the late 1970s. But the really chilling part was what prompted her to report this: Our State Department, with Rex Tillerson as its head, has just awarded a no-bid contract to provide security services at the Moscow embassy to a Russian firm that is headed by a close Putin ally who is also a veteran of the KGB. Remember that Tillerson was closely involved with the Russians in oil deals, when he was CEO of Exxon-Mobile. Putin gave him a medal. And now we're going to give them the keys to our embassy building in their capital? The same building that was practically unusable when new because Russians had installed listening devices in the basic building materials we let them supply. This is either naivete or collusion, trying to be passed off as building a better relationship. It seems Russia has thoroughly invaded our executive branch. So we just handed them the keys. What could possibly go wrong?
Ralph
1. Roy Moore: National Republicans are finally distancing themselves. Both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and many others in Congress, have said he should step aside. Virtually all of the senators have said, at least, "if it's true," he should. Others are dropping that qualifier and saying they believe the women and he should drop out now. Everyone's eager to see what Trump does. Moore still has a lot of support in Alabama, and some even think he can still win. Some even say, given the choice between a Democrat and a Republican pedophile, they would choose the latter. McConnell, etc. are desperately trying to figure out a way to reject Moore while still holding on to the seat, given that they would then have only a one-vote Senate majority.
2. Nominee for HHS Chair: Trump has nominated Alex Azar to replace Tom Price as head of Health and Human Services. For 10 years, Azar was a top executive for one of the major pharmaceutical companies, which is bad, when one of Trump's stated goals -- and that of the American people -- is to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. However, I have a hunch he might not be as bad as Price. He is known as an expert on government health care regulation, having worked in the George W. Bush HHS department. He's known as a problem-solver and not as an ideologue.
3. Donald Trump, Jr. was back in the headlines when it was revealed that he had previously undisclosed email exchanges with Wikileaks during later stages of the campaign, during the time of their release of DNC-hacked emails. While Wikileaks claims to be non-partisan and only concerned with full transparency and exposing government secrets, it's obvious from these messages from them to Trump, Jr. that they are supporting Trump -- asking their campaign to help publicize the site where people can read the DNC emails. Fifteen minutes after receiving such an email, not Trump, Jr. but Trump, Sr. sent out this tweet: "Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!" You only have to believe, as our intelligence chiefs do, that Russia was behind these hacks, to see this as evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign. Whether it's enough to make a case, is a question. But Mueller has much more than this.
4. Trump home from Asia trip: It was a long, and therefore risky, trip with lots of chances for our gaffe-prone president to stumble. While there were no glaring missteps, and he didn't start WW III, there is plenty for progressives and globalists to be very disturbed about, not least of which is Trump's becoming pals with the Philippine monster Duterte. Trump treated him like a new personal friend and never once mentioned the human rights abuses -- even the rampant murders of suspects by police that Duterte openly condones. Back during the campaign, Trump praised how well Duterte was "handling the drug problem" in his country -- [yeah, he just murders any suspect in the streets; it takes a little longer to go through due process.] It brings to mind Trump's campaign exhortation to a law enforcement crowd not to "be so nice" to suspects when you're taking them into custody. The world now knows how to play Trump -- you flatter him, have adoring crowds cheering him, put on a grand display of military might . . . and you have your brutal strongman become buddies with him (Putin and now Duterte).
5. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was back on the hot seat yesterday in a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee. Grilled over his ever-changing answers about his contact with Russians during the Trump campaign, he resorted to "I don't remember" dozens of times. Over several different hearings, now, his pattern is to "not remember." Then when he's presented with evidence, or someone else's testimony, then he remembers. And here's the troublesome thing: he doesn't remember that he met with a Russian or that he was in a meeting where Papadopoulos said he was in contact with Russians and could set up a meeting between Putin and Trump. Sessions "didn't remember" that meeting; but when his memory was "refreshed" by Papadopoulos' confession in his plea bargain, then Sessions remembers what he himself said in the meeting. He didn't remember meeting with the Russian ambassador; but when refreshed, then he remembers what they talked about. The other very disturbing thing to me was, when asked, he had to admit that he had not taken any action toward preventing foreign interference in our next elections, even though in a hearing months ago he had said he would.
6. Giving in to Russia: Rachel Maddow had a fascinating and chilling segment last night about Russian spying -- and our own collusion in it. She reviewed the history of their bugging our embassy in Moscow back in the late 1970s. But the really chilling part was what prompted her to report this: Our State Department, with Rex Tillerson as its head, has just awarded a no-bid contract to provide security services at the Moscow embassy to a Russian firm that is headed by a close Putin ally who is also a veteran of the KGB. Remember that Tillerson was closely involved with the Russians in oil deals, when he was CEO of Exxon-Mobile. Putin gave him a medal. And now we're going to give them the keys to our embassy building in their capital? The same building that was practically unusable when new because Russians had installed listening devices in the basic building materials we let them supply. This is either naivete or collusion, trying to be passed off as building a better relationship. It seems Russia has thoroughly invaded our executive branch. So we just handed them the keys. What could possibly go wrong?
Ralph
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Ted Cruz accidentally gets it right on guns
Reported on Vox.com by German Lopez: Commenting about the mass shooting in a church in Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz was trying to make the case that more guns, not fewer, is the answer -- as in, "the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
But he got his syntax a little garbled and actually said this:
"Evil is evil is evil and will use the weaponry that is available."
YES !!! That's exactly the point. We want to make assault rifles "less available." [See ShrinkRap post on Friday, Nov. 10th "Why do we have more gun deaths?"]
But he got his syntax a little garbled and actually said this:
"Evil is evil is evil and will use the weaponry that is available."
YES !!! That's exactly the point. We want to make assault rifles "less available." [See ShrinkRap post on Friday, Nov. 10th "Why do we have more gun deaths?"]
Never thought I'd praise Mitch McConnell . . . but . . .
Mitch McConnell is not high on my list of politicians to praise. But he did something very right yesterday. He was asked by reporters what he thought about Roy Moore's situation. And Mitch said . . .
"I believe the women. Roy Moore should step aside."
"I believe the women. Roy Moore should step aside."
Another woman accuses Roy Moore
Based on reports by the Associated Press and The Guardian
Another woman has come forward to accuse Roy Moore of sexual assault when she was 16, back in the 1970s. He was a regular customer at the restaurant where she worked; and one night he offered to drive her home. Instead, he parked the car in a deserted area, locked the doors, and made forceful sexual advances, touching her breasts and squeezing her neck as he tried to push her head toward his crotch and pull her shirt off.
She says she thought he was going to rape her, and she begged him to stop. He told her that "You're just a child and no one will believe you," since he was a district attorney. Somehow she got the door unlocked, and she either was pushed or fell out of the car, as he drove off leaving her lying on the ground. The next morning, she says there were black and blue bruises on her neck.
She is being represented by Gloria Allred, a well known attorney who represents women in sexual assault cases. Together they held a press conference and the woman's name was used. This makes five women now who have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual advances when they ranged in age from 14 to 18 and he was in his 30s.
Senator Cory Gardner, chair of the National Republican Senate Committee, said this:
"I believe the individuals speaking out against Roy Moore spoke with courage and truth, proving he is unfit to serve in the United States Senate . . . If he refuses to withdraw and wins, the Senate should vote to expel him, because he does not meet the ethical and moral requirements of the United States Senate."
Moore and his team continue to deny all allegations and to denounce all the stories as a witch hunt. However, observers of Moore's interview with Sean Hannity have noted that his denial was less than robust, even despite Hannity's very leading questions trying to shape his answers as more favorable to him.
Ralph
Another woman has come forward to accuse Roy Moore of sexual assault when she was 16, back in the 1970s. He was a regular customer at the restaurant where she worked; and one night he offered to drive her home. Instead, he parked the car in a deserted area, locked the doors, and made forceful sexual advances, touching her breasts and squeezing her neck as he tried to push her head toward his crotch and pull her shirt off.
She says she thought he was going to rape her, and she begged him to stop. He told her that "You're just a child and no one will believe you," since he was a district attorney. Somehow she got the door unlocked, and she either was pushed or fell out of the car, as he drove off leaving her lying on the ground. The next morning, she says there were black and blue bruises on her neck.
She is being represented by Gloria Allred, a well known attorney who represents women in sexual assault cases. Together they held a press conference and the woman's name was used. This makes five women now who have accused Moore of inappropriate sexual advances when they ranged in age from 14 to 18 and he was in his 30s.
Senator Cory Gardner, chair of the National Republican Senate Committee, said this:
"I believe the individuals speaking out against Roy Moore spoke with courage and truth, proving he is unfit to serve in the United States Senate . . . If he refuses to withdraw and wins, the Senate should vote to expel him, because he does not meet the ethical and moral requirements of the United States Senate."
Moore and his team continue to deny all allegations and to denounce all the stories as a witch hunt. However, observers of Moore's interview with Sean Hannity have noted that his denial was less than robust, even despite Hannity's very leading questions trying to shape his answers as more favorable to him.
Ralph
Monday, November 13, 2017
Trump defends Putin against intelligence chiefs; then has to backtrack.
President Trump modified his original Asia trip plans to include a Southeast Asia summit meeting that Vladimir Putin was going to be attending so they could meet. Staff claimed that they merely shook hands in a greeting. But it was obviously more than that.
Trump told the media: "Every time he [Putin] sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that.' And I believe -- I really believe that, when he tells me that, he means it."
Which put Trump-appointed CIA Director Mike Pojpao in an awkward spot, because he does accept the collective conclusion of the former intelligence chiefs that Russians did it. What do you do when your boss, the president, says publicly what you know to be false? Even more, the president says he believes Vladimir Putin over the CIA . . . and you're now head of the CIA, and you know he's wrong?
When the Russian hacking occurred, Pompao was a Congressman from Kansas, but he has a background in intelligence. He put out a low-key statement but definitely accepts the conclusion that Russia interfered in our election.
Confronted with this discrepancy with his statement about Putin, Trump backtracked a bit and told the press that he "stands with" our intelligence services, "especially under the current leadership."
This prompted a report from The Guardian newspaper that said, "Two former US intelligence chiefs have said Donald Trump poses "a peril" to the US because he is vulnerable to being "played" by Russia." These former chiefs are James Clapper (former Director of National Intelligence) and John Brennan (former CIA Director) who Trump had called "political hacks" for their support of the intelligence consensus about Russia's meddling.
Brennan told CNN's "State of the Union:"
"He [Trump] was trying to delegitimize the intelligence assessment that was done. , , , By not confronting the issue directly , , , he's giving Putin a pass. And I think it demonstrates to Mr. Putin that Donald Trump can be played by foreign leaders who are going to appeal to his ego and try to play upon his insecurities, which is very, very worrisome from a national security standpoint."
Clapper commented on Trump's having to revise his praise for Putin, and this coming in the context of the royal treatment Trump has been enjoying on his Asia trip. Clapper said:
"I think he seems very susceptible to rolling out the red carpet, honor guards and all the trappings and pomp and circumstance that came with the office. I think that appeals to him and it plays to his insecurities. Yes, I do think that both the Chinese and the Russians can play him."
One simple fact evident in just this reporting proves the point. Trump says he asked Putin, again, and Putin says he didn't do it. "How many times can you ask him?" a stymied Trump wondered. It's either unbelievable naivete or willful dumbness to think that you can just ask Vladimir, former head of the KGB, whether he committed a crime -- and that he will tell you the truth. And Trump just accepts that? Come on.
Trump's Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin defended his boss: "President Trump is not getting played by anybody. [He] was focused on some very important issues in North Korea and Syria and those are areas in which we need to work with Russia and get them on board with our strategy."
That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the issue of Russia's hacking our election and will do it again -- and to the issue of what power Putin may have over Trump. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller may be getting closer to answers to those questions.
Ralph
Trump told the media: "Every time he [Putin] sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that.' And I believe -- I really believe that, when he tells me that, he means it."
Which put Trump-appointed CIA Director Mike Pojpao in an awkward spot, because he does accept the collective conclusion of the former intelligence chiefs that Russians did it. What do you do when your boss, the president, says publicly what you know to be false? Even more, the president says he believes Vladimir Putin over the CIA . . . and you're now head of the CIA, and you know he's wrong?
When the Russian hacking occurred, Pompao was a Congressman from Kansas, but he has a background in intelligence. He put out a low-key statement but definitely accepts the conclusion that Russia interfered in our election.
Confronted with this discrepancy with his statement about Putin, Trump backtracked a bit and told the press that he "stands with" our intelligence services, "especially under the current leadership."
This prompted a report from The Guardian newspaper that said, "Two former US intelligence chiefs have said Donald Trump poses "a peril" to the US because he is vulnerable to being "played" by Russia." These former chiefs are James Clapper (former Director of National Intelligence) and John Brennan (former CIA Director) who Trump had called "political hacks" for their support of the intelligence consensus about Russia's meddling.
Brennan told CNN's "State of the Union:"
"He [Trump] was trying to delegitimize the intelligence assessment that was done. , , , By not confronting the issue directly , , , he's giving Putin a pass. And I think it demonstrates to Mr. Putin that Donald Trump can be played by foreign leaders who are going to appeal to his ego and try to play upon his insecurities, which is very, very worrisome from a national security standpoint."
Clapper commented on Trump's having to revise his praise for Putin, and this coming in the context of the royal treatment Trump has been enjoying on his Asia trip. Clapper said:
"I think he seems very susceptible to rolling out the red carpet, honor guards and all the trappings and pomp and circumstance that came with the office. I think that appeals to him and it plays to his insecurities. Yes, I do think that both the Chinese and the Russians can play him."
One simple fact evident in just this reporting proves the point. Trump says he asked Putin, again, and Putin says he didn't do it. "How many times can you ask him?" a stymied Trump wondered. It's either unbelievable naivete or willful dumbness to think that you can just ask Vladimir, former head of the KGB, whether he committed a crime -- and that he will tell you the truth. And Trump just accepts that? Come on.
Trump's Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin defended his boss: "President Trump is not getting played by anybody. [He] was focused on some very important issues in North Korea and Syria and those are areas in which we need to work with Russia and get them on board with our strategy."
That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the issue of Russia's hacking our election and will do it again -- and to the issue of what power Putin may have over Trump. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller may be getting closer to answers to those questions.
Ralph
Sunday, November 12, 2017
More on Moore II
Teresa Jones is a former prosecutor who worked along with Roy Moore as a deputy district attorney in the early 1980s. She told CNN that it was "common knowledge" that Moore dated teenage girls -- and that "people thought it was weird. . . . We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall." She added, "I have no doubt these stories have validity."
More on Moore
Folks, Roy Moore is one of those maddening -- but very colorful -- political characters that seem more common in the South. Think Flannary O'Connor and her outlandish characters. We have to reach back to Georgia's Governor Lester Maddox (1967 to 1971) to come up with a politician anywhere close to Moore's clownish, right-wing idiocy. But Moore is far more dangerous.
After Moore was removed, for the second time, from his elected position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, the head of the Soluthern Poverty Law Center commented: "The Court of the Judiciary has done a tremendous service to the people of Alabama by stripping him of his judicial power. . . . He clearly did not understand the difference between being a judge and being a preacher."
Some Moore supporters are using the following line of defense against accusations of inappropriate sexual touching of a 14 year old girl when he was 32:
"Jesus' mother Mary was a teenager -- and Joseph was an adult carpenter" -- the point being that what Moore did couldn't be so bad. What they forget, and what is gleefully pointed out by comedians, is this: According to Biblical belief, Jesus was the result of "immaculate conception" -- Mary was the "Virgin Mother," which means no sex with Joseph was involved. The spirit of God impregnated Mary; it wasn't Joseph who did it.
But never worry about the right-wing Christians being bothered by inconsistency or illogic when they want to claim pious backing for their politics -- or to excuse the bad behavior of their politicians.
Conservative, former "Red State" blogger Erick Erikson wrote this, originally published on his current political blog "The Resurgent": "Y’all, I think the facts of the case as presented by the Washington Post are pretty damning. If I were a voter in Alabama, I would probably have to sit it out. But there are a lot of voters who are really damn tired of the culture war and they just want to be left alone." So, he said, he doesn't blame those who still will vote for Moore.
But Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), certainly a bona fide conservative, has rescinded his endorsement of Moore and asked to have his image removed from the campaign website. Here's Lee's twitter announcement:
"Having read the detailed description of the incidents, as well as the response from Judge Moore and his campaign, I can no longer endorse his candidacy for the U.S. Senate."
The terseness of that message, from a colleague who had endorsed him after he won the primary, is very telling. Unfortunately, most people are making up their minds without actually reading the detailed story, only relying on news briefs
Many politicians are still hiding behind the "if the allegations are true, then he should step aside." OK. But what more proof do they think is possible? Short of photographs, or a written note from Moore, what could be proof? You have to rely, as a jury would, on an assessment of the credibility of the accusers and of Moore himself.
Besides, this is not a court of law, where you would be taking away someone's liberty if falsely convicted. People just have to decide whether Moore is someone they want to vote for. And there are many things in his response that are not very convincing of his innocence. Sean Hannity, in a radio inverview, had to literally put words in Moore's mouth to get him to acknowledge that dating a 16 year old when he was 32 -- which he admits to doing -- is not something he would want for his own daughter.
If you read the detailed Post article, as Sen. Lee did, there are 30 sources who are giving first-hand accounts, or corroborating those accounts in some way. The women are also quite believable in their explanations of why they did not come forward sooner -- including the former 14 year old. She says she considered it back when he was elected to be Supreme Court Chief Justice; but her children were still in school, and she didn't want to put them through it. Makes sense.
So Erick Erickson has a suggestion: since Moore's name cannot be removed from the ballot at such a late date, he suggests that Moore should pledge that, if elected, he will then resign so that the governor can appoint another Republican to take his place in the Senate.
I say: Don't count on Roy Moore to resign. Vote for Doug Jones.
Ralph
After Moore was removed, for the second time, from his elected position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, the head of the Soluthern Poverty Law Center commented: "The Court of the Judiciary has done a tremendous service to the people of Alabama by stripping him of his judicial power. . . . He clearly did not understand the difference between being a judge and being a preacher."
Some Moore supporters are using the following line of defense against accusations of inappropriate sexual touching of a 14 year old girl when he was 32:
"Jesus' mother Mary was a teenager -- and Joseph was an adult carpenter" -- the point being that what Moore did couldn't be so bad. What they forget, and what is gleefully pointed out by comedians, is this: According to Biblical belief, Jesus was the result of "immaculate conception" -- Mary was the "Virgin Mother," which means no sex with Joseph was involved. The spirit of God impregnated Mary; it wasn't Joseph who did it.
But never worry about the right-wing Christians being bothered by inconsistency or illogic when they want to claim pious backing for their politics -- or to excuse the bad behavior of their politicians.
Conservative, former "Red State" blogger Erick Erikson wrote this, originally published on his current political blog "The Resurgent": "Y’all, I think the facts of the case as presented by the Washington Post are pretty damning. If I were a voter in Alabama, I would probably have to sit it out. But there are a lot of voters who are really damn tired of the culture war and they just want to be left alone." So, he said, he doesn't blame those who still will vote for Moore.
But Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), certainly a bona fide conservative, has rescinded his endorsement of Moore and asked to have his image removed from the campaign website. Here's Lee's twitter announcement:
"Having read the detailed description of the incidents, as well as the response from Judge Moore and his campaign, I can no longer endorse his candidacy for the U.S. Senate."
The terseness of that message, from a colleague who had endorsed him after he won the primary, is very telling. Unfortunately, most people are making up their minds without actually reading the detailed story, only relying on news briefs
Many politicians are still hiding behind the "if the allegations are true, then he should step aside." OK. But what more proof do they think is possible? Short of photographs, or a written note from Moore, what could be proof? You have to rely, as a jury would, on an assessment of the credibility of the accusers and of Moore himself.
Besides, this is not a court of law, where you would be taking away someone's liberty if falsely convicted. People just have to decide whether Moore is someone they want to vote for. And there are many things in his response that are not very convincing of his innocence. Sean Hannity, in a radio inverview, had to literally put words in Moore's mouth to get him to acknowledge that dating a 16 year old when he was 32 -- which he admits to doing -- is not something he would want for his own daughter.
If you read the detailed Post article, as Sen. Lee did, there are 30 sources who are giving first-hand accounts, or corroborating those accounts in some way. The women are also quite believable in their explanations of why they did not come forward sooner -- including the former 14 year old. She says she considered it back when he was elected to be Supreme Court Chief Justice; but her children were still in school, and she didn't want to put them through it. Makes sense.
So Erick Erickson has a suggestion: since Moore's name cannot be removed from the ballot at such a late date, he suggests that Moore should pledge that, if elected, he will then resign so that the governor can appoint another Republican to take his place in the Senate.
I say: Don't count on Roy Moore to resign. Vote for Doug Jones.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
