;)
The Commentariat -- April 12, 2019
Arrested Developments
Ken Vogel & Katie Benner of the New York Times: "In an indictment that seized the attention of the capital's K Street lobbying corridor, Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, was charged on Thursday with lying to the Justice Department and concealing information about work he did in 2012 for the government of Ukraine. The indictment of Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. The charges represented a continuation -- and an expansion -- of a new focus on a long-neglected law governing foreign influence operations in the United States, which the Justice Department has begun prioritizing in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller's investigation.... The work was steered to Mr. Craig and his firm by Paul Manafort...."
Eileen Sullivan & Richard Pérez-Peña of the New York Times: "The United States has charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of conspiring to hack a computer as part of the 2010 release of reams of secret American documents, according to an indictment unsealed Thursday, putting him just one flight away from being in American custody after years of seclusion in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The single charge, conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, was filed a year earlier, in March 2018, and stems from what prosecutors said was his agreement to break a password to a classified United States government computer. It carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and is significant in that it is not an espionage charge, a detail that will come as a relief to press freedom advocates. The United States government had considered until at least last year charging him with an espionage-related offense.... The conspiracy charge against Mr. Assange unsealed Thursday is not related to the special counsel's investigation into Russia's election influence.... He was detained partly in connection with an American extradition warrant after he was evicted by the Ecuadoreans.... Mr. Assange will have the right to contest the United States extradition request in British courts." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Ronn Blitzer of Law & Crime: "While the public was already aware of Assange's role in publishing military documents leaked by Chelsea Manning, the indictment includes some revelations regarding Assange's own alleged criminal activity. Here are the major points. 1. Assange allegedly helped Manning hack government computers.... 2. Assange's help was meant to hide Manning's role in leaks.... 3. Manning thought she was done leaking, but Assange encouraged her to do more.... 4. The indictment appears to solve the free speech problem." (Also linked yesterday.)
... See Trump's response to Assange's arrest under Trump Scandals, below. ...
... Rachel Weiner, et al., of the Washington Post: "... through the years, the case [against Assange] languished. Some prosecutors reasoned that Assange was arguably a publisher, if a capricious one. Concerned that proving a criminal case against him would run up against the First Amendment and, if successful, set a precedent for future media prosecutions, the Obama administration chose to put the case aside. In 2017 -- after WikiLeaks exposed CIA hacking tools and stirred political chaos by releasing Democratic campaign emails -- the government began to take a more aggressive tack. Under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, prosecutors dusted off the investigation and discussed how the anti-secrecy organization's founder could be charged without running afoul of press freedoms. Under the federal law governing computer crimes, prosecutors faced a deadline to file charges within eight years of the 2010 disclosures that put him in their crosshairs. The single-count indictment unsealed in Alexandria federal court Thursday shows they did so just under the deadline.... Analysts said focusing narrowly on [cracking a government password] is a deft way of fending off criticism that the case puts news organizations in legal jeopardy."
Brian Melley of the AP: "Attorney Michael Avenatti has been charged in a 36-count federal indictment alleging he stole millions of dollars from clients, did not pay his taxes, committed bank fraud and lied in bankruptcy proceedings. Avenatti, 48, was indicted late Wednesday by a Southern California grand jury on a raft of additional charges following his arrest last month in New York on two related counts and for allegedly trying to shake down Nike for up to $25 million. The attorney best known for representing porn actress Stormy Daniels in lawsuits against ... Donald Trump said Thursday on Twitter that he will plead not guilty to the California charges." Mrs. McC: Other than that, Avenatti would have made a great president! (Also linked yesterday.)
The Usual Trump Scandals, Ctd.
Jonathan Allen of NBC News: "... Donald Trump said Thursday that he knows 'nothing about WikiLeaks' hours after the arrest of the organization's founder, Julian Assange, and two-and-a-half years after he frequently cited its information dumps about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. 'I know nothing about WikiLeaks,' Trump told reporters at the White House, where he met with South Korean President Moon Jae-in. 'It's not my thing. I've seen what's happening with Assange.' Later Thursday, during a White House event with World War II veterans, Trump said, 'I don't know much about it.'... At a[n October 2016] rally in North Carolina, Trump said, 'we love Wikileaks.'" Mrs. McC: Someone on MNSBC calculated that Trump favorably mentioned WikiLeaks 100 times during the 2016 campaign. ...
Comey Knocks Barr. Zolan Kanno-Youngs & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "The former F.B.I. director James B. Comey said on Thursday that he knew of no electronic surveillance aimed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election, defending the bureau after Attorney General William P. Barr asserted a day earlier that the bureau spied on the campaign as part of the Russia investigation. 'When I hear that kind of language used, it's concerning because the F.B.I., the Department of Justice conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance,' said Mr. Comey, who oversaw the inquiry until President Trump abruptly fired him in May 2017. 'I have never thought of that as spying.'... 'I think spying did occur,' Mr. Barr said [during testimony].... Mr. Barr's statement lined up with that longstanding talking point used by Mr. Trump and his allies.... Mr. Trump said again on Thursday that he believed 'there was absolutely spying into my campaign. I'll go a step further: In my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again,' Mr. Trump said. 'And I think his answer was actually a very accurate one.'" ...
... MEANWHILE. Matt Shuham of TPM: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended Attorney General William Barr's handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's final report in an interview with The Wall Street Journal Thursday. Referring to Barr's initial four-page summary of Mueller's mammoth report, Rosenstein told the Journal that the attorney general was 'being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he's trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre.'" Mrs. McC: Huh. This is Rosenstein covering his own ass, of course. I can't access the WSJ report, but I'm going to guess Rosenstein didn't defend Barr's under-oath claim that the FBI & other agencies were "spying on the Trump campaign" inasmuch as Rosenstein himself signed off on at least two FISA requests to surveil Trump campaign operatives. ...
... Update: Lawrence O'Donnell said Rosenstein would not comment to the WSJ about Barr's use of the word "spying." ...
... Josh Marshall of TPM: "Barr is ... repeatedly playing word games like this ['spying' debacle]. He issues a supererogatory exoneration of President Trump and then claims he had never meant to do that. He'd like to release the whole Mueller Report. But the rules just make it really hard for him to do that. He very clearly used the word 'spying' and then said he needed to make sure it hadn't happened. That was to give the President his talking point. Then he or his staff tell the Times that he didn't mean to imply anything by that. He just meant 'spying' as a synonym for surveillance.... This is obviously not true. Yet the Times passes it on as though it were a good faith explanation of what Barr was thinking.... Robert Costa of the Post [says] that Republicans are themselves wondering what Barr is up to. The explanation they're being given? Well, it turns out he's actually not a career prosecutor. So he's just not really in tune with DOJ practices and policies and traditions. They [MSM] simply can't grasp their way toward the obvious explanation. He's a bad actor, using his office for the purpose of defending the President as opposed to enforcing the law. He's a crook. But he's a smart one." --s ...
... Caroline Kelly of CNN: "Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Wednesday it was 'both stunning and scary' that Attorney General William Barr would tell lawmakers that Donald Trump's 2016 campaign was spied on.... 'I was amazed at that and rather disappointed that the attorney general would say such a thing. The term 'spying' has all kinds of negative connotations and I have to believe he chose that term deliberately.'" (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare: "Attorney General Bill Barr's statements [Wednesday] on supposed 'spying' by the FBI on the Trump campaign before the Senate Appropriations Committee were indefensible. They were at once indecipherable and contentless, on the one hand, and incendiary, on the other hand. I am not one of the many people looking to think ill of Barr. Indeed, I have taken a lot of heat recently for being willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the specific issue of his production of a redacted version of the Mueller report. That said, his comments today were reckless. They will play into gross conspiracy theories. They are also unfair to the individuals whom Barr suggested had engaged in some sort of unspecified wrongdoing.... Asked if he had any evidence of improper collection, he responded, 'I have no specific evidence that I would cite right now.' But, he said, 'I do have questions about it.' When the attorney general 'has questions' about the conduct of his department, the proper thing to do is not to dangle those question in a congressional hearing in a fashion bound to stir up conspiracy theories." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Justin Baragona of the Daily Beast: "Reacting to Attorney General William Barr's shocking claim that he believes 'spying did occur' on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Wednesday night that this was further proof the Republican Party establishment was beholden to Fox News and its top star.... 'This is a classic demonstration of the Fox News-ification of the Republican Party,' Toobin exclaimed. 'That even an establishment figure like Bill Barr, someone who comes out of the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, talks like Sean Hannity.... There's already been an inspector general's investigation, so I don't know what he's going to investigate, but you know, his use of this term shows how much the paranoid lunacy of the right wing is now moved right in to the Department of Justice.'... This claim that the Obama administration used the FBI and intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign has been pushed by President Trump and his allies for over two years now, starting with Trump's infamous tweet -- and unfounded claim -- that he 'found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: And, please, let's not give Barr the benefit of the doubt & buy his claim -- which he made under oath Wednesday -- that he had no idea "spying" was a loaded term. It may be occurring to you about now that Jeff Sessions was a more honorable AG than Barr.
Lock Them Up. David Cay Johnston in The Daily Beast: "I know why Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Charles Rettig, the IRS commissioner, are so cautious [about not outright refusing to release Trump's taxes]. They don't want to be removed from office and sent to prison for five years just for doing Trump's bidding.... It will for sure shock Trump, who claims that 'the law is 100 percent on my side.' The exact opposite is true. Under Section 6103 of our tax code, Treasury officials 'shall' turn over the tax returns 'upon written request' of the chair of either congressional tax committee or the federal employee who runs Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. No request has ever been refused.... There is, however, a law requiring every federal 'employee' who touches the tax system to do their duty or be removed from office.... [It specifies that they be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.]... The crystal-clear language of this law applies to Trump, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Mnuchin and Rettig, federal employees all.... There are no qualifiers in Section 6103 that shield Trump from delivering, in confidence, his tax returns to Congress. No wiggle room at all." --s ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: The problem is, of course, who would enforce the law? Bill Barr? I don't think so. It's possible there's a prosecutor somewhere out there in the hinterlands who would respond positively to a formal complaint from Johnston and/or others, but I wouldn't count on it. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what "advice" the DOJ gives Mnuchin, who had written to Rep. Richard Neal that he is "consulting" with Justice on release of Trump's returns.
Michael Kranish of the Washington Post: "While much attention has focused on the question of whether the Trump campaign encouraged or conspired with Russia, the effort to target [Bernie] Sanders supporters has been a lesser-noted part of the story. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, in a case filed last year against 13 Russians accused of interfering in the U.S. presidential campaign, said workers at a St. Petersburg facility called the Internet Research Agency were instructed to write social media posts in opposition to [Hillary] Clinton but 'to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.' [Besides tweets urging readers to back Sanders,] any thousands of other tweets, with no direct reference to Sanders, were also designed to appeal to his backers, urging them to do anything but vote for Clinton in the general election.... The effort to promote Sanders as a way to influence the U.S. election began shortly after he declared his candidacy in spring 2015, according to Mueller's indictment of the Russians."
Edmund Lee & Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times: "The owners of The National Enquirer are in talks to sell the tabloid to Ronald W. Burkle, a supermarket magnate with ties to President Bill Clinton, according to two people.... The deal could still fall apart.... Mr. Burkle has been a regular in the gossip pages and on the A-list benefit and party circuit.... An acquisition of The Enquirer by Mr. Burkle, a longtime Democratic donor, could raise eyebrows in Washington, given President Trump's fondness for the tabloid, which he has praised on Twitter."
The Vindictive Administration. Rachel Bade & Nick Miroff of the Washington Post: "White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of 'sanctuary cities' to retaliate against President Trump's political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post. Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months -- once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump's border wall. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco was among those the White House wanted to target, according to DHS officials. The administration also considered releasing detainees in other Democratic strongholds. White House officials first broached the plan in a Nov. 16 email, asking officials at several agencies whether members of the caravan could be arrested at the border and then bused 'to small- and mid-sized sanctuary cities,' places where local authorities have refused to hand over illegal immigrants for deportation.... After the White House pressed again in February, ICE's legal department rejected the idea as inappropriate and rebuffed the administration." ...
... The Vengeful President* & His Evil Sidekick. Evan Perez of CNN: "Trump personally pushed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to follow through on the plan [to dump detainees on the streets of sanctuary cities].... Nielsen resisted and the DHS legal team eventually produced an analysis that killed the plan....White House senior adviser Stephen Miller urged senior DHS officials to make the plan a reality, the source said.... Miller was angered that DHS lawyers refused to produce legal guidance that would make the plan viable.... DHS officials believe that the legal standoff is one reason why Miller has pushed for the firing of John Mitnick, the general counsel for DHS, who is still with the department. A separate DHS official confirmed there was such a proposal. 'These are human beings, not game pieces,' the official said." ...
Government Data Blow Hole in "Wall". Noah Lanard of Mother Jones: "In January ... the White House began pushing a new talking point. Seventeen thousand criminals had been arrested at the southern border in the previous year, Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen all said.... [A]ccording to previously unreleased government data obtained by Mother Jones, the government was vastly exaggerating the number of criminals arriving at the southern border.... Criminals are nearly three times as likely to be caught by Customs and Border Protection officers at the country's northern border.... [O]f the foreigners convicted of crimes in the United States or abroad who were stopped by CBP at ports of entry from October 2016 to February 2019, 43 percent arrived at the northern border, 42 percent at airports or ports, and just 15 percent at the southern border, according to a CBP spokeswoman.... Taken together, the new data suggests ... CBP officers and Border Patrol agents actually stopped fewer than 9,000 criminals at the southern border last year, not 17,000." --s...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Definitely time to build a 5,525-mile wall between the U.S. & Canada. And close all international airports.
... Trump Taps Albence to Run Immigrant "Summer Camps." Hamed Aleaziz of BuzzFeed News: "The Trump administration has tapped Matthew Albence to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the wake of the sudden resignation of its former leader. Albence, a career official and former ally of former ICE acting director Thomas Homan, has risen quickly under the administration and is seen as an official with the type of hardline approach that ... Donald Trump may appreciate.... Albence became better known after his appearance on Capitol Hill on July 31 during which he said that family detention centers were best described as 'more like a summer camp,' to the shock of some advocates and politicians."
Trump Tweets Lou Dobbs' Fantasy Poll. Adam Raymond of New York: "President Trump's approval rating is 43 percent according to a new poll from Georgetown. His disapproval is 52 percent and his unfavorable rating is 55 percent. On Wednesday's episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight, the Fox Business host and Trump favorite got those numbers wrong [and emphasized Trump's "soaring" approval rating]. And on Thursday morning, Trump tweeted" out the fake graphic, which claimed Trump's actual unfavorable rating of 55 percent was his favorable rating. Fox Business later issued an on-air correction; Trump did not delete his tweet. (Also linked yesterday.)
You paid your taxes & Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, didn't (actually he probably paid personal taxes, but Amazon paid zip): ...
... Thanks, Trump! Kathryn Kranhold of the Center for Public Integrity in an NBC News post: "At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero, on income earned on U.S. operations, according to an analysis released today by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect. Among them are household names like ... Amazon.com Inc. and ... Netflix Inc., in addition to ... Chevron Corp...., Eli Lilly and Co., and ... Deere & Co. The identified companies were 'able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income,' according to the ITEP report, which was released today. 'Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Benjy Sarlin of NBC News: "Companies with profits over $100 million would face new corporate taxes under a proposal released Thursday by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. The 2020 presidential hopeful said her 'real corporate profits tax' is aimed at companies that report large annual gains but pay little in taxes thanks to a variety of tax credits and deductions that are available to lower their overall bill." (Also linked yesterday.)
Samantha Michaels of Mother Jones: "Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threw a party to celebrate one of his only bipartisan victories, the First Step Act, which is supposed to reduce the size of the federal prison population.... Now there's another key indication that the First Step Act isn't being implemented as criminal justice reform groups and some lawmakers intended.... On Monday, the Justice Department announced that the Hudson Institute, a conservative DC-based think tank whose leaders have espoused harsh views on incarceration, would choose the members of an independent committee to help develop a risk assessment tool -- a crucial component of the law.... Now lawmakers of both parties who backed the First Step Act are alarmed at the Justice Department's latest move.... 'I'm a little bit worried that we just let a fox in the chicken coop here,' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said[.]" --s
All the Best People, Ctd.
Coral Davenport of the New York Times: "The Senate on Thursday voted to confirm David Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the oil and agribusiness industries, as secretary of the interior. The confirmation of Mr. Bernhardt to his new post coincided with calls from more than a dozen Democrats and government watchdogs for formal investigations into his past conduct. Senators voted 56-41, largely along party lines, in favor of Mr. Bernhardt's confirmation. Three Democrats -- Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia...; Senator Krysten Sinema of Arizona; and Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico -- supported Mr. Bernhardt, as did one independent, Senator Angus King of Maine.... Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said: 'It still amazes me. Donald Trump campaigns on cleaning up the swamp and he does exactly the opposite when in office. An oil and gas lobbyist as head of the Department of Interior? My God. That's an example of the swampiness of Washington if there ever was one. And when are Donald Trump's supporters going to understand this?'"
"An Inflection Point." Burgess Everett & Eliana Johnson of Politico: "As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked Republicans this week to head off problematic nominees before ... Donald Trump officially picked them, the Kentucky Republican singled out Ken Cuccinelli. Floated for the job of Homeland Security secretary, the former Virginia attorney general runs the anti-establishment Senate Conservatives Fund.... McConnell remarked Tuesday that the group had cost the GOP seats in 2010 and 2012 by guiding the party away from more electable candidates.... In addition to confronting Trump on his purge at the Department of Homeland Security and his threat to deploy auto tariffs and keep existing levies, GOP senators hope they can persuade the president to avoid nominating Cuccinelli or Kris Kobach, another immigration hard-liner, to lead DHS. They also want Trump to drop plans to nominate Herman Cain [see related stories linked below] to the Federal Reserve and are considering whether to challenge Stephen Moore's nomination to the Fed. . We're trying to do everything we can to send the message before they send these people up here,' said a Republican senator who 20 seconds later lamented a separate problem: Trump's 'trade nightmare.'... It's an inflection point, with Senate Republicans weighing how hard to try to contain the president." ...
... Rebekah Entralago of ThinkProgress: "Nineteen leaders of conservative groups sent a letter to President Donald Trump Thursday, urging him to select Ken Cuccinelli to lead the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia, is a staunch conservative with a significant track record of racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric.... Cuccinelli appeared on a conservative radio show in early 2012 to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement and, in doing so, compared immigrants to rats.... In 2015, the former Virginia AG appeared on another conservative radio show and claimed former President Barack Obama was encouraging an 'invasion.'... Like Trump, Cuccinelli has opposed birthright citizenship, which grants U.S. citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the country.... More recently, Cuccinelli supported the president's decision to deploy troops at the U.S.-Mexico border." --s
Herman Cain, who if nominated for a Fed position would first be vetted by the Senate Banking Committee, called members of that committee "a bunch of yahoos." Pretty good PR move. He also "compared the right to health care to the right to own a Cadillac, and said God would decide when it was time to stop using fossil fuels." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Update: The Yahoos Revolt. Jim Tankersley of the New York Times: "Herman Cain's chances to win confirmation to the Federal Reserve plummeted on Thursday as at least four Republican senators indicated they would not back President Trump's choice to fill a Fed seat. Those defections would be enough to defeat Mr. Cain in a divided Senate, should Mr. Trump follow through with his plans to formally nominate him. Mr. Cain, a former pizza magnate whose 2012 presidential run was upended by claims of sexual harassment, is currently undergoing a background check and President Trump has said he will wait for that to be completed before officially nominating him to the seven-member Fed board. Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota, told reporters on Thursday that he 'would vote no' if asked to confirm Mr. Cain. Three other Republican senators -- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Cory Gardner of Colorado -- have also said publicly that they would not support Mr. Cain." ...
... So Then... Tara Palmeri & Katherine Faulders of ABC News: "Herman Cain is expected to withdraw his name from consideration for the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, amid growing pressure from Republican senators on the White House to remove him from consideration, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter."
Katherine Krueger of Splinter: "On Wednesday morning, Fox News used its biggest megaphone to amplify an attention-starved congressman's [Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas)] bad faith charge against Rep. Ilhan Omar: that, in remarks before the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she characterized the Sept. 11 attacks as some people did something. That this is a willful misreading of her fuller point -- that all Muslims in America have faced violence, intimidation, and discrimination as a result of the actions of a small group of extremists -- shouldn't surprise you." The New York Post -- which, like Fox, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, splashed its notorious front page with a photo of the Twin Towers burning on 9-11, accompanied by the caption, "Here's your something." "... this narrative around Omar's remarks is proving her exact point -- bigots began widely equating terrorists with all Muslims after 9/11, but ask us not to do the same if the terrorist is white -- so cutting off Omar's remarks to make it seem like she was minimizing the attacks fits an Islamophobic narrative already entrenched on the right. Omar's response to fellow congressman Dan Crenshaw correctly accused him of 'dangerous incitement.'? ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: None of us should be surprised by the right's attacks on Omar. For more than eight years, these bigots hinted or said outright that President Obama -- who was not a Muslim -- was a Jihadist bent on destroying the good ole EwEssAy. Would you expect them to do less to an actual Muslim?
Joe Romm of ThinkProgress: "Imagine a world where 85% of all electricity comes from renewable sources, there are over one billion electric vehicles on the road, and we are on track to preserve a livable climate for our children and future generations. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reported this week that such a future is not merely possible by 2050, but thanks to plummeting prices in key clean energy technologies, the cost of saving the climate has dropped dramatically. In fact, according to IRENA's new report, the most cost-effective strategy to achieve a 'climate-safe future' ... is an accelerated energy transition to renewables and energy efficiency coupled with electrification of key sectors like transportation. This Renewable Energy Roadmap (REmap) scenario 'would also save the global economy up to USD 160 trillion cumulatively over the next 30 years in avoided health costs, energy subsidies and climate damages.'" --s
Share Article
Reader Comments (14)
In Donald's obvious lie about knowing "nothing" about Wikileaks, he reveals all his tells that @Marie has pointed out previously: He adopts his "calm", subdued manner, lowers his voice to about as serious as he can sound, and gives the denalist shoulder shrugging that says "quit fucking asking me about this". The deranged man lies as naturally as he breaths.
However, unlike most talking heads on MSM that claim that he lies so much he's lost track of reality, I believe that could be the case in certain instances, but it's only due to the fact that he changes his story so often he can't remember which version he is supposed to propagandize on again. If this con artist is successful at anything, it's being a master at The Art of the Con. Despite his swiss cheese brain, I feel like he has an innate ability to remember nearly every con from beginning to finish, to be able to continue the con for as long as he needs to eventually get out from under the lies. Everyone has a speciality, and his is the psychopathic ability to just run roughshod over everyone while remembering every slight and lie and con that he does to each person. That could also explain why he's so prone to temper tantrums and can never let go if anyone ever "disrespects" his fragile infantile ego.
Bea,
You make the point above that I've been worrying over for some time.
In the event the Pretender or someone at cabinet level in his administration is obviously breaking a law, who will do anything about it?
I can't think of anyone or any institution who would fill that role today. Certainly not the Injustice Dept. or the Senate, so who's left to send the message essential to any democracy that the president (any president) is not above the law?
I'm guessing an effort to stage a citizen's arrest wouldn't get very far, tho' I take some delight in picturing one, bathed as it would be in Chaplinesque absurdity.
In short, unless someone or some institution I cannot think of steps up we may have already gone over the edge.
BTW, when I see Barr in action, I keep recalling John Mitchell, thinking of how the two are similar and how different and missing Mitchell's sad partner, Martha?
@Ken: Someone who would agree wholeheartedly that we have "already gone over the edge" was the man who saw Trump and this upheaval of the state of our state a century ago: Thorstein Veblen, a great American thinker whose working life–-1890-1923–- coincided with America's first Gilded Age. Here's a taste of an extremely long but important piece on Veblen's insights and foresights and what we have are dealing with today:
"As Galbraith pointed out in his 2008 book The Predator State, the frustrated predators of the twenty-first century sneakily changed tactics: they aimed to capture the government themselves, to become the state. And so they have. In the Trump era, they have created a government in which current regulators are former lobbyists for the very predators they are supposed to restrain. Similarly, the members of Trump’s cabinet are now the saboteurs: shrinking the State Department, starving public schools, feeding big Pharma with Medicare funds, handing over national parks and public lands to “developers,” and denying science and climate change altogether, just to start down a long list. Meanwhile, our Predator President, when not golfing, leaps about the deconstruction site, waving his hands and hurling abuse, a baron of distraction, commanding attention while the backroom boys (and girls) demolish the institutions of law and democracy."
Here's the link to the Veblen piece:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-man-who-saw-trump-coming-a-century-ago/
Thanks, PD
Veblen was one of the voices that began the ruination of my life back in the 1960's. Galbraith, too.
You would think the sense they make is so obvious as to be undeniable, but...
The problem is that while unfettered capitalism doesn't have all the answers, it does have all (most of, anyway) the money.
Regarding who will enforce the law in the face of a lawless administration and the equally recusant party supporting it, the textbook answer would be the courts.
But Trump and the Republicans have been working feverishly to pack the federal courts with toadies and they've already, despotically, packed the Supreme Court with their watchdogs. There are still some federal judges who understand the law (vide the stops placed on many of Trump's illegal immigration ploys), but the court of last resort is still the Supreme one, and no one knows how they will respond in the case of an existential challenge to Trumpian and Republican supremacy and lawless authoritarianism.
Should they back Trump's refusal to obey the law, we will have descended into dark waters indeed. The American Experiment will officially be over. Democracy is already a sham in many areas controlled by Republicans. The abnegation of the rule of law is well under way.
Even if Democrats succeed in turning things partially around in 2020, Republicans, as we have seen all too well, are past masters at fucking things up as a minority party. And if the Supremes side with their continued lawlessness, we're done. Four of them are rubber stamps. At this point, John Roberts, who believes there is no such thing as racism anymore(!) is now the swing vote.
Best put on your wellies. The swamp is filling up.
Last night I watched, for the third time, the history of Jewish influence on Broadway –– these immigrant ( all changed their names to sound more American) Jews who wrote all the glorious music that still reverberates today. These marvelous, talented, brilliant composers and lyricists who changed our country with their music. It was the Jewish legacy to America and America's legacy to the world.
A couple of things to say re: this documentary: When Joel Gray sings in "Cabaret" the song with the gorilla, the last lines–-"If you could see her through my eyes–-she wouldn't look Jewish at all"–- when this was first shown on Broadway those lines caused a great hue and cry–-people thought the lines meant that Jews look like gorillas. So Jerome Robbins, the director at the time pulled it out saying that it was too much to ask from the audience. When the film was later made the lines were kept in–-the country had evolved and "got" what the real message was. Then much later Mel Brooks produced and directed "The Producers" and we had Hitler dancing and singing. As Brooks said, the best way to deal with Hitler was to bring him down with ridicule. Something we are most familiar these days.
S0––-gray skies are gonna clear up–--put on a happy face OR just thinking about tomorrow, tomorrow...or god bless America sung by and written by Irving Berlin–-and he was the one, the real light, who guided us through the rough times with his tunes and his love for a country that embraced him and gave him a home.
@PD Pepe: I don't think they changed their names to sound more "American." They anglicized their names. In my view, there isn't any name that isn't "American," tho I must admit when I'm typing reporters' names, as I do every day, I find it easier to remember how to spell "Maggie Astor" than "Asawin Seubsaeng."
Ah, Assange. Another shoe that might drop.
So far Assange (sorry Mr. Ellsberg, not a hero at all!) is accused only only of abetting Manning in her illegal revelations of classified material. Doesn''t seem like much and from what I've read might not even stand up in court.
But there's Wikileak's association with Roger Stone to come. I'm looking forward to that prosecution and hearing more about the role Wikileaks played in Stone's skullduggery.
Wonder if the Barr tool will let that one go forward.
@Ken Winkes: I'm of the impression that -- if Assange loses his extradition fight -- the U.S. won't charge him for anything more than the crime for which he's already been charged. I heard on the teevee yesterday that in extradition agreements, the charging country can't tack on other crimes after the person has been extradited; otherwise, Texas could charge someone residing in Canada with shoplifting, a non-capital crime, have him extradited, then charge him with murder once he got to Texas. That would violate Canada's prohibition of capital punishment.
Also, too, Assange may not have committed any crimes in releasing the Clinton-related emails, since he didn't do the hacking & merely passed on the hacked e-mails from Russian sources. I suppose he could be charged as a prime actor in an international conspiracy to interfere in an American election. Or as a foreigner providing a "thing of value" to a campaign, but that seems like a stretch since so far there's no evidence in the public domain that Assange actually handed the materials over to the Trump campaign, and there's certainly nothing wrong with publishing material that hurts one candidate or the other. Assange is sleazy, but he may not have broken U.S. law -- except if he indeed helped Chelsea Manning hack a government site.
@Marie: "Also, too, Assange may not have committed any crimes in releasing the Clinton-related emails, since he didn't do the hacking & merely passed on the hacked e-mails from Russian sources." But isn't it a crime that he gave Manning the name to use in her being able to hack in the first place?
Re: names that sound American. Yeah, I agree but that's what one of the composers said last night: "We all changed our names to sound more American."
@ Bea
Have the same impression, but will maintain hope. Keeps me going.
Mrs. McCrabbie - Here is a thought provoking series of observations by "legal experts" on how the House Ways and Means Committee might compel delivery of an individual's tax returns. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts. I don't mean to disparage these "legal experts" by my use of quotation marks. I do mean to share your concern about who exactly is currently enforcing the laws with respect to the core operations of the federal government in the United States.
@PD Pepe: It sounds as if you're confusing the Chelsea Manning hacks (ca. 2010) with the Clinton-related e-mail hacks (2016). The DOJ has charged Assange on the Manning leaks; it is -- so far -- silent on the Clinton e-mail leaks.