;)
The Commentariat -- April 5, 2018
Late Morning Update:
Scott Pruitt's Rehabilitation Campaign Is Going Very Well. Timothy Cama of the Hill: "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said he wasn't aware that two close aides received pay raises after the White House refused to allow it. 'My staff and I found out about it yesterday and I changed it,' Pruitt told Fox News in an interview published Wednesday, adding that he wasn't sure who was responsible for the raises. 'You don't know? You run the agency. You don't know who did it?' Fox's Ed Henry asked the EPA head. 'I found out this yesterday and I corrected the action and we are in the process of finding out how it took place and correcting it,' Pruitt responded." Mrs. McC: Totally believable. ...
... Moving Right Along. Coral Davenport & Lisa Friedman of the New York Times: "Samantha Dravis, Mr. Pruitt's top policy adviser, has recently told him she is resigning, according to two E.P.A. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the news has not been made public. And his chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, has grown frustrated enough with his boss that he has considered resigning, according to people in whom Mr. Jackson has confided.... Both Ms. Dravis and Mr. Jackson are seasoned Washington insiders who have worked for years among the capital's top conservative Republicans and industry lobbyists. Ms. Dravis' departure comes on the heels of questions raised by Senator Thomas Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, about her work history. According to a letter that Mr. Carper sent to the E.P.A. inspector general, Ms. Dravis did not attend work or perform her duties for most of November, December and January while continuing to draw a salary.... Thursday afternoon, though, Mr. Trump when asked aboard Air Force One if he had confidence in his E.P.A. chief, he responded: 'I do.'"
Jeff Stein of the Washington Post: "The Kentucky legislature passed a sweeping tax overhaul this week, and now lawmakers are asking Gov. Matt Bevin to sign a bill that would slash taxes for some corporations and wealthy individuals while raising them on 95 percent of state residents, according to a new analysis.... Bevin's position on the tax overhaul, Kentucky's biggest in more than a decade, remains unknown.... The state's nonpartisan legislative staff estimated the plan will, on net, raise money, although other experts are skeptical."
Ed Kilgore: "Mitch McConnell has been a member of the U.S. Senate for a third of a century.... When he was asked by a Kentucky interviewer about the his biggest accomplishment as a senator..., McConnell says 'the decision I made not to fill the Supreme Court vacancy when Justice Scalia died was the most consequential decision I've made in my entire public career.'... The wily old wire-puller surely understands that his ability to deliver judicial confirmations, particularly for SCOTUS, may be the best reason members of his party's dominant conservative wing continue to put up with him.... Judges are the best bait to keep hard-core conservatives in the party harness. And for a broad swath of them, from anti-abortion activists to anti-regulatory warriors to gun nuts to advocates for unlimited money in politics, SCOTUS is the ball game." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: If you are worried about what would happen in a "Constitutional crisis," remember Mitch. The answer is "Democrats wail & Republicans prevail." In other words, not much.
*****
"The Greatest President Ever." Dana Milbank explores a "signature Trump move: Don't just deny the charge [against you] but declare yourself to be the polar opposite (while accusing your opponents of whatever you were accused of: You're the puppet!). He can't be a racist, or soft on Russia, or anything bad -- because he's the furthest possible thing from that. It's all terribly reassuring." Milbank runs down many of Trump's ridiculous, false boasts. Pathetic.
Mike Allen of Axios: "To White House insiders, this is the most dangerous phase of Donald Trump's presidency so far, from the brewing trade war with China that he denies is a trade war, to the perilously spontaneous summit with North Korea.... Checks are being ignored or have been eliminated, and critics purged as the president is filling time by watching Fox, and by eating dinner with people who feed his ego and conspiracy theories, and who drink in his rants. Both sides are getting more polarized and dug in -- making the daily reality more absurd, and the potential consequences less urgent and able to grab people's serious attention.... Trump's closest confidants speak with an unusual level of concern, even alarm, and admit to being confused about what the president will do next -- and why."
Julie Davis & Katie Rogers of the New York Times: "President Trump will issue a proclamation on Wednesday directing the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to work with governors to deploy National Guard troops to the southwest border to assist the Border Patrol in combating illegal immigration. 'It's time to act,' said Kirstjen Nielsen, the secretary of homeland security, as she outlined the policy during a White House briefing. In recent days, and in anticipation of an annual increase in numbers of people who attempt to cross the border, the Trump administration has been ramping up plans to block migrants and asylum seekers, including young unaccompanied children, from entering the United States. The announcement came a day after Mr. Trump said he wanted to send the military to the southwest border to guard against growing threats from unchecked immigration, suggesting he might want to use active-duty armed forces to do what immigration authorities cannot." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: When Trump said he wanted to send the military, I have no doubt he meant active-duty armed forces. Here's another case where his staff talked him down from a nutty or unconstitutional and completely unplanned project. Anyway, let's see if Jerry Brown cooperates. ...
... Update. Seung Min Kim of the Washington Post: "California was noncommittal Wednesday on the administration's plans. Lt. Col. Tom Keegan, a spokesman for the state's National Guard, said the state will 'promptly' review the request to 'determine how best we can assist our federal partners.' The California National Guard already has 55 personnel who provide support at the border through its anti-drug operations. 'We look forward to more detail, including funding, duration and end state,' Keegan said."
... Helene Cooper of the New York Times: "At the Pentagon, several officials privately expressed concern about being seen as picking a fight with an ally at a time when the military has plenty of adversaries -- the Islamic State, North Korea, Russia, Syria -- to contend with. Massing American troops at another country's border, several current and former Defense Department officials said, would send a message of hostility and raise the chances of provoking an all-out conflict.... Defense Department officials say that [Secretary Jim] Mattis backs the proposal if it mirrors deployments made under Mr. Trump's predecessors, when troops were sent in a support, but not enforcement, role. The active-duty military is generally barred by law from carrying out domestic law enforcement functions, such as apprehending people at the border.... But military officials worry that Mr. Trump may not be satisfied with the Bush- and Obama-level deployments. Even limited deployments, Pentagon officials said, have come with their share of trouble." ...
... New York Times Editors: "President Trump escalated his verbal fusillade against immigrants this week by announcing a foolish plan to deploy troops along the Mexican border. Such a move has at best a tenuous basis in law and none in logic, and it will burn through federal funds better spent elsewhere. Mr. Trump has long stoked a xenophobic fear of newcomers among his political base.... Like so many of the president's decisions, the one to put troops on the border seems impulsive, spiteful and politically motivated.... He is resorting to the demagogue's tactic of inspiring fear and appears not to understand why the Posse Comitatus Act was enacted -- to limit the powers of the federal government in using military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.... There was no consultation with the Mexican president, whose ambassador to the United States called the decision unwelcome.... Spending billions of dollars for extraneous operations doesn't seem to concern Mr. Trump, who appears indifferent to the ballooning federal deficit; he also suggested, inappropriately, that the Pentagon could pay for the wall."
Managing the Moron. Carol Lee, et al., of NBC News: "... Donald Trump reluctantly agreed in a meeting with his national security team on Tuesday to keep U.S. troops in Syria for an undetermined period of time with the goal of defeating ISIS, a senior administration official said Wednesday. 'He wasn't thrilled about it, to say the least,' the official said. Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top officials made the case to Trump that the fight against ISIS was almost finished but a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces at this time would risk losing gains the U.S. has made in the ISIS fight, the official said." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Ooh, Trumpy got very grumpy when the big boys told him he couldn't get what he wanted right away. Elise Labott & Kevin Liptak of CNN report. ...
... Julie Davis: "It was the latest instance of the president making an unscripted remark with far-reaching implications that prompted a behind-the-scenes scramble by his advisers to translate blunt talk into an official government policy. White House and administration officials also had spent Monday and Tuesday trying to translate a series of confusing presidential tweets and comments on immigration into a coherent strategy...." Davis runs down Trump's changing story over the past week.
MEANWHILE, Kudlow, et al., Try to Clean up Trump's Trade War. Ana Swanson & Keith Bradsher of the New York Times: "White House officials moved quickly on Wednesday to calm fears of a potential trade war with China, saying the administration's proposed tariffs were a 'threat' that would ultimately help, not hurt, the United States economy, hours after China said it would punish American products with similar levies. The administration's insistence that a trade war was not imminent came as the United States and China traded tit-for-tat penalties that caused wild swings in stock markets from Hong Kong to New York. Led by more audacious leaders than either country has had in decades, China and the United States are now locked in a perilous game of chicken, with the possibility to derail the global economic recovery, disrupt international supply chains and destabilize the huge yet debt-laden Chinese economy.... 'There's no trade war here,' Larry Kudlow, Mr. Trump's new top economic adviser, said in an interview on Fox Business Network. He described the threat of tariffs as 'just the first proposal' in a process that would involve negotiations and back-channel talks.... On Wednesday, Mr. Trump suggested in a tweet that he saw no reason to back down, since the United States was already on the losing end of trade with China." ...
... BUT. Natalie Kitroeff & Ben Casselman of the New York Times: ">In the escalating economic showdown between the United States and China, President Trump is trying to put American shoppers first. The administration did not place tariffs on necessities like shoes and clothes, and mostly spared smartphones from the 25 percent levy on Chinese goods announced this week. But by shielding consumers, Mr. Trump has put American manufacturers -- a group he has championed -- in the cross hairs of a potential global trade war. If the measures stand, along with China's retaliatory tariffs, they could snuff out a manufacturing recovery just beginning to gain steam. 'If you want to spare the consumer so you don't get this massive backlash against your tariffs, then there goes manufacturing...,' said Monica de Bolle, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'The irony is, you cannot spare manufacturing from anything because manufacturing is globally integrated. The sector sources its parts and components from all over the world.'... Recent job growth has been concentrated in industries that could be affected by American tariffs on China, Chinese tariffs on the United States, or both." Mrs. McC: It's not as if nobody had any idea that a tariff war would mess up the international economy.
Michael Scherer, et al., of the Washington Post: "An emboldened President Trump is discovering that the policies he once described as easy fixes for the nation are a lot more complicated in reality -- creating backlash among allies, frustrating supporters and threatening the pocketbooks of many farming communities that helped get him elected. Freed from the caution of former advisers, Trump has spent recent weeks returning to the gut-level basics that got him elected: tough talk on China, a promise of an immigration crackdown and an isolationist approach to national security. Several people who have spoken to the president say he is telling advisers that he is finally expediting the policies that got him elected and is more comfortable without a number of aides around him who were tempering his instincts. And he often cites rising poll numbers in recent weeks as a reason he should do it his own way, these people said."
John Hudson, et al., of the Washington Post: "The United States is expected to impose additional sanctions against Russia by Friday, according to U.S. officials. The sanctions are economic and designed to target oligarchs with ties to President Vladimir Putin, the officials said. The final number of Russians facing punitive action remains fluid, the U.S. officials said, but is expected to include at least a half-dozen people under sanction powers given to the president by Congress." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Let's hope the sanctions are more meaningful than the supposed dramatic expulsion of Russian diplomats:
... Fake Diplomat Expulsion Exchange. Laura Koran of CNN: "The State Department confirmed the United States and Russia can replace diplomats in each other's countries who were expelled last week, describing the process as standard practice for cases in which targeted personnel are ejected as 'persona non-grata,' and cautioning that any new diplomats would be subject to approval on a 'case-by-case basis.' 'As always/As with similar incidents in the past, the Russian government remains free to request accreditation for vacant positions in its bilateral mission,' a State Department spokesman told CNN in a statement Tuesday. 'Any requests for new diplomatic accreditation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.' 'The Russian Federation has not informed us that it intends to reduce the total number of personnel allowed in our bilateral Mission,' the spokesperson added. 'We therefore understand that the United States may request new diplomatic personnel to fill the positions of diplomats who have been expelled.'" Thanks to Ken W. for the lead. (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... So one guy is going after Russian oligarchs:
of CNN: "Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the US, stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York area airport, according to multiple sources familiar with the inquiry. A second Russian oligarch was stopped during a recent trip to the US, although it is not clear if he was searched, according to a person briefed on the matter. Mueller's team has also made an informal voluntary document and interview request to a third Russian oligarch who has not traveled to the US recently.... Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration."
Uh-Oh. Andrew Kaczynski & Gloria Borger of CNN: "Roger Stone appeared on the InfoWars radio show the same day he sent an email claiming he dined with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange -- and he predicted 'devastating' upcoming disclosures about the Clinton Foundation. Stone's comments in his August 4, 2016, appearance are the earliest known time he claimed to know of forthcoming WikiLeaks documents. A CNN KFile timeline shows that on August 10, 2016, Stone claimed to have 'actually communicated with Julian Assange.'... In the interview with Jones on InfoWars, Stone said that he believed Assange had proof of wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation.... On the August 4, 2016, InfoWars show, Stone described the soon-to-appear WikiLeaks disclosures. He also mentioned that he spoke with ... Donald Trump on August 3 -- the day before the interview." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... digby has Stone's number: "If I had to guess, the 'joke' is that [Stone] Skyped or otherwise communicated with Assange while he was eating dinner and just exaggerated for effect. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that he made it up out of whole cloth for no purpose."
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post: "A federal judge expressed doubts Wednesday about a lawsuit brought by Paul Manafort challenging special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's criminal probe of Russian interference in 2016 U.S. elections. During a 90-minute hearing in Washington, Manafort's defense team retreated from requests that the court void Mueller's appointment and dismiss criminal charges already brought in the District and Virginia against President Trump's former presidential campaign chairman. But Manafort's lawyers asked the court to bar Mueller from bringing future charges, saying a provision authorizing the special counsel to investigate 'any matters that arose or may arise directly from' its probe of possible collusion between Trump officials and the Russian government is an abuse of the Justice Department's legal authority.... U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington made clear her skepticism as she questioned Manafort attorney Kevin M. Downing. How, she asked, did he expect a court to act against charges that have not yet been brought, and how could he know that Manafort would be prosecuted lawfully or unlawfully?" ...
... Jeff Toobin of the New Yorker: "It's long been an article of faith for Trump supporters, and for Trump himself, that collusion is not illegal. As the President told the Times in an interview last December, 'There is no collusion, and even if there was, it's not a crime.' Now, it appears, Trump's own Justice Department may have a different view. That conclusion appears in a document released earlier this week, in the course of pre-trial litigation in the case of Paul Manafort.... In a memorandum issued on August 2nd, [Rod] Rosenstein spelled out the details of [Robert] Mueller's jurisdiction. He said that Mueller had the authority to investigate: 'Allegations that Paul Manafort: Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law....'... Mueller now has the authority, and the legal theory, to bring criminal charges for collusion." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: It looks to me as if "collusion," in Rosenstein's mind, is just another work for "conspiracy" to violate some law.
Mark Mazzetti, et al., of the New York Times: "A witness who is cooperating in the special counsel investigation, George Nader, has connections to both the Persian Gulf states and Russia and may have information that links two important strands of the inquiry together, interviews and records show.... Mr. Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, has a catalog of international connections that paved the way for numerous meetings with White House officials that have drawn the attention of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. For example, Mr. Nader used his longstanding ties to Kirill Dmitriev, the manager of a state-run Russian investment fund, to help set up a meeting in the Seychelles between Mr. Dmitriev and a Trump adviser [Erik Prince] days before Donald J. Trump took office. Separately, investigators have asked witnesses about a meeting Mr. Nader attended in 2017 at the office of a New York hedge fund manager, where he was joined by Jared Kushner and Stephen K. Bannon, who at the time were both senior advisers to Mr. Trump.... Mr. Nader has received at least partial immunity for his cooperation...."
Brian Schwartz of CNBC: "John Bolton, who is days away from becoming President Donald Trump's national security advisor, has been meeting with White House attorneys about possible conflicts of interest, CNBC has learned. The exact sticking points for Bolton are unclear, but ethics experts say the appearance of a possible future role for Bolton with an entity such as a political action committee could be a cause for concern for White House officials. Bolton's PAC and super PAC, which are no longer receiving or spending capital, have been financial players in the early going of the midterm election cycle.... The John Bolton Super PAC has been a big player during the early stages of the 2018 midterm elections. The group has raised $3.8 million in the most recent election cycle.... Watchdogs such as Common Cause have brought the PAC's past spending efforts to light with a number of legal complaints filed to the FEC. All of the complaints relate to the Bolton groups' work with political data firm Cambridge Analytica.... While it's unclear what was obtained through Cambridge Analytica's research, The New York Times reported in March that Bolton was purchasing services for 'behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging.'... There were also questions about his role as chairman of his nonprofit group, the Foundation for American Security and Freedom." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: I'm sure it comes as a big surprise to you that another Trump pick for national security advisor (remember Michael Flynn?) has ethics problems, including one that Robert Mueller's team is already investigating. (And yeah, Bolton has a weird Russia connection, too.) Unfortunately, Bolton does not need Senate confirmation.
Emily Holden, et al., of Politico: "EPA chief Scott Pruitt and his allies in the administration are on a mission to save his job -- offering a blitz of interviews to friendly media outlets while separately accusing a former agency staffer of a cascade of damaging leaks. But the White House made it clear Wednesday that President Donald Trump is not pleased with all the negative headlines surrounding him.... That appeared to complicate Pruitt's defensive strategy, which combines exclusive interviews with Fox News, The Washington Times and other conservative media, supportive statements in the broader press from trusted allies, and deflection that compares his activities and spending with past EPA administrators'.... In a live interview ... with The Washington Times that focused mostly on his usual policy talking points, Pruitt briefly dismissed his personal controversies as a 'distraction' and said he was under siege in an agency he described as a 'bastion of liberalism.'" ...
... Ben Geman & Jonathan Swan of Axios: "Axios' Jonathan Swan spoke with sources close to President Trump and this basic picture emerged: If nothing else bad comes out against Pruitt, they'll probably ride through the storm with him. But should more damaging stories surface -- especially ones that demonstrate poor ethical judgement -- Pruitt could be abandoned in a flash. Trump is uneasy about the situation, and has his finger in the wind." ...
... Asawin Suebsaeng & Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast: In a phone call, Chief of Staff John Kelly "impressed upon Pruitt that, though he has the full public confidence of President Trump for now, the flow of negative and damning stories needed to stop soon, as one source briefed on the contents of the call described.... Shortly thereafter, The Atlantic reported that Pruitt had defied the White House and directed his staff to give raises to a pair of employees.... Kelly and other senior White House officials were blindsided by major details in The Atlantic's article.... Making matters worse for Pruitt was a Wednesday report from The Washington Post that said Pruitt had used the same Safe Drinking Water Act provision to hire a number of employees absent White House input, including two former lobbyists who might otherwise have been barred from the posts by ethics rules imposed by Trump by executive order weeks after taking office." ...
... Cristina Alesci of CNN: "The Environmental Protection Agency's top ethics watchdog clarified his earlier analysis of whether Administrator Scott Pruitt's rental arrangement broke the federal gift rule, saying he didn't have all the facts when evaluating the lease, according to a memo provided to CNN. The official also made clear that he didn't evaluate whether Pruitt had violated other ethics rules, according to the memo obtained by the Campaign Legal Center and shared with CNN." ...
... The Strange Disappearance of Scott Pruitt. Juliet Eilperin & Brady Dennis of the Washington Post: "After moving out of the Capitol Hill condo apartment he rented for $50 a night last summer, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt appears to not have maintained a Washington residence for a month, instead traveling extensively for work and remaining for weeks at his Tulsa home. Pruitt ended his housing arrangement with lobbyist Vicki Hart on Aug. 4. At that point, he already had embarked on a more than week-long trip across five states to visit with elected officials and farmers..., with a weekend at home in Tulsa along the way. He then took an extended vacation, according to agency records, during which time officials said that he underwent knee surgery and recuperated at home while receiving staff briefings. After another round of meetings in Oklahoma and a visit to Texas to survey the damage from Hurricane Harvey, Pruitt returned to EPA headquarters Sept. 5.... Members of his round-the-clock security detail remained with him while he was away from Washington."
Alex Horton of the Washington Post: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement appears to have ignored a directive from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to prevent the deportation of noncitizen troops and veterans, seeking to remove a Chinese immigrant despite laws that allow veterans with honorable service to naturalize, court filings show. Xilong Zhu, 27, who came from China in 2009 to attend college in the United States, enlisted in the Army and was caught in an immigration dragnet involving a fake university set up by the Department of Homeland Security to catch brokers of fraudulent student visas.... 'Anyone with an honorable discharge ... will not be subject to any kind of deportation,' Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon in February, describing exceptions for criminals and anyone who has been authorized for deportation in an agreement he said was made with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Zhu&'s attorney, retired Army officer Margaret Stock, told The Washington Post those exceptions do not apply to him."
Craig Timberg, et al., of the Washington Post: "Facebook said Wednesday that 'malicious actors' took advantage of search tools on its platform, making it possible for them to discover the identities and collect information on most of its 2 billion users worldwide. The revelation came amid rising acknowledgement by Facebook about its struggles to control the data it gathers on users. Among the announcements Wednesday was that Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy hired by President Trump and other Republicans, had improperly gathered detailed Facebook information on 87 million people, of whom 71 million were Americans. But the abuse of Facebook's search tools -- now disabled -- happened far more broadly and over the course of several years, with few Facebook users likely escaping the scam, company officials acknowledged." ...
... Cecilia Kang & Sheera Frenkel of the New York Times: "Facebook said on Wednesday that the personal information of up to 87 million people, most of them Americans, may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm connected to President Trump during the 2016 election. The new figure, roughly equivalent to a quarter of the population of the United States, is substantially greater than the previous estimate of how many users' information Cambridge Analytica harvested. The number had been put at more than 50 million users. Facebook released the revised figure as part of an extended statement about changes it is making to how it handles personal data. The company said it would start telling users on April 9 about whether their information might have been shared with Cambridge Analytica." ...
... Sarah Frier of Bloomberg: "Facebook Inc. scans the links and images that people send each other on Facebook Messenger, and reads chats when they're flagged to moderators, making sure the content abides by the company's rules. If it doesn't, it gets blocked or taken down.... The company told Bloomberg that while Messenger conversations are private, Facebook scans them and uses the same tools to prevent abuse there that it does on the social network more generally.... Facebook's other major chat app, WhatsApp, encrypts both ends of its users' communications, so that not even WhatsApp can see it -- a fact that's made it more secure for users, and more difficult for lawmakers wanting information in investigations."
The Gossip Page
Michal Kranz of Business Insider: "... Donald Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, on Wednesday said a Daily Mail report that he had hired former White House staff secretary Rob Porter was 'fake news.'... The Daily Mail report said that days after Porter was let go by the White House amid allegations that he had physically abused his ex-wives, he was hired by Parscale's digital strategy company. The Daily Mail reported that Trump personally intervened to get Porter a job, with the intention of later having him play a role in his reelection campaign." ...
... The Daily Mail story is here. According to its report, Parscale "had previously declined to comment on the record when reached by DailyMail.com before the story was published." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: I supposed we'll have to take Parscale's latest word for it, because I doubt the rejects who "work" for Trump's campaign actually put on a suit & show up at the office, so no staking out the place. The 2020 campaign is nonetheless known as a landing pad for Donald's "misfit toys," so the Daily Mail story has a ring of truth to it, even tho it is, after all, the Daily Mail & there's an unequivocal denial on the record.
Emily Smith & Julia Marsh of the New York Post: "Rudy Giuliani and his wife, Judith, are divorcing after 15 years of marriage, the former New York mayor confirmed first to Page Six.... Judith on Wednesday filed a contested divorce proceeding in Manhattan Supreme Court, which indicates she's readying for a fight over their marital assets, which include property in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Fla." Mrs. McC: If you lived in NYC in 2000, you will likely recall that Rudy announced in a press conference that he & his second wife Donna Hanover were separating. It was news to Hanover, too.
Share Article
Reader Comments (15)
Find it very interesting how quiet the online publications have become...the ones I mean are those that require individuals to have a Facebook account in order to comment. Tho' they all seem to be going full blast in their outrage (deservedly so) at FB, Cambridge Analytica, et al in headline stories.
Looks to me that their role in encouraging readers to sign up with FB needs to be called out.
Complicit or not?
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that, as I recalled, one had to have a Facebook account to comment on the New York Times platform. Someone wrote & said that wasn't true. It turns out it was true in the past if one wanted to be a "verified commenter." According to the Times,
"We initially required Facebook verification because we believed that, in the absence of moderating comments before they were posted to NYTimes.com, real identities would dissuade commenters from posting content that did not meet our standards.
"After studying the program, we no longer believe that allowing users to post under pseudonyms decreases the quality of comments submitted by Verified Commenters."
I think that's the Gemli Rule. Gemli, who is one of the most popular commenters -- and IMO the best -- was invited to become a verified commenter but s/he couldn't do so because it would mean revealing his/her identity, and there's a valid reason Gemli doesn't do so.
But I do think other news orgs that require commenters to sign in via Facebook use it as a kind of "security check." A bit ironic, no?
Bea: you put it way better than my comment merely hinted at. Ironic, indeed! that FB would be used as a "security check."
I almost never comment to the NYT. But -- last fall, when I was a paid-up on-line subscriber, I submitted a comment which was anodyne and factual -- and it was not posted by the NYT. Last month, I submitted a comment to the same op-ed feature, and it took them two days to post it. I assume that they have humans (editor-like ... reviewers) reading submissions before accepting them ... and humans err.
Why would they have needed FB for verification? If you subscribe, they have your billing info, and if that indicates you are a human (not a LLC or something) bob's your uncle. And if you don't subscribe, they could tag your submission back to you saying "pay up and we'll print what fits").
These days it seems pretty clear that many of us don't want our full names out in the electronically hooverable public arena. I get enough crap in the mails as it is.
FYI - I have several e-mail accounts, but only two that I actually use for communications. One of them I alone use. The other my wife and I share. The one I alone use, I use only to write/receive e-mails to/from humans. The shared account we use for personal commo, but also online purchases and communications with automated things (like health care portals, etc.). The first account gets NO unsolicited e-mails, banners, etc, other than from Dell (with whom I had to use that e-mail account to execute Dell's start up routine at purchase.) The second account gets junk e-mail everyday, plus pop-ups for any product I may have googled recently.
So, keeping your full data out of easy reach of data grabbers just makes sense (and you won't find me on any social media, cause I'm not on any, and never have been.)
PBS has had, this week, a three part documentary on black history in this country culminating with MLK's life and times, Obama's reign, and the racist aftermath. The trajectory of our black Americans is one of the most enlightening stories and one of the most horrific. And last night watching again the great surge of "we finally made it!" feelings after Obama was elected filled me and brought tears. What followed this zeitgeist was the realization that we hadn't made it the way we had hoped. Today I read that another black man––a mentally challenged one–-was shot down by police on a New York city street because someone thought he was branding a gun (he wasn't), and was actually a loved figure in his neighborhood. And I think how guns, hate, and prejudice play such an essential part in this country that some say is "the greatest country on earth."
Which brings me to Scott Pruitt, that little prick of a man that obviously thinks he can run the EPA by destroying it. Here is a man that, according to Politico, while being interviewed by a Tulsa radio station some years ago, remarked that there weren't "sufficient facts to establish the theory of evolution." full stop!!!!
Another example of his running off on his own is how he has conducted his meetings: this according to the New Yorker:
"The administration's traditional array of meetings with environmental or public health groups have been almost entirely replaced by speeches to corporate groups, such as the Louisiana Chemical Assoc. and private meetings with representatives of fossil-fuel companies and other regulated concerns. (Pruitt has withheld the text of these speeches)."
So again, I ask: Why has Congress not called him back for another hearing? All we hear is that Humpty Dumpty is unhappy about the bad press Pruitt is getting and he may or he may not fire him depending on what kind of "mood" he's in at the moment. Oh, these moments– ephemeral––like breath on glass.
Want and need some help.
The issue recurred to me this last week when a Maryland court ruled that one of the emolument suits brought against the Pretender could go forward. Why are DOJ attorneys defending him? Why not private attorneys? Isn't it the duty of the DOJ to defend government employees from suits brought against them for something they've done in performance of their duties?
Does the employment of DOJ attorneys to defend the Pretender in this instance then mean that corrupt, self-serving actions now do and henceforth will fall within that performance of duty definition?
I don't get it. Did a little googling and couldn't find a defense of the practice. Did find this, which made sense to me.
https://biglawbusiness.com/trump-should-foot-legal-bill-to-defend-emoluments-suit-perspective
Thoughts, anyone?
Am I just up on my hind legs again over nothing?
PD,
"So again, I ask: Why has Congress not called him back for another hearing". Good Question but, Congress? What's that? I looked all over the news and found nothing related to 'congress' or congress person. If that entity exists, they are all hiding under the table.
@Ken Winkes: On the face of it, I think you're right.
I do think the DOJ should defend the president & other officials against frivolous lawsuits, & I guess I'd leave it up to the DOJ to initially decide what's "frivolous." That seems to be more or less what they did, because they argued that CREW had no standing (and one judge agreed). If that's the case, a judge's ruling allowing the suit to go forward should change the DOJ's position; that is, if a court has decided a suit is legitimate, it is by definition not frivolous. And if the suit is complaining about an official's private actions (as it is in this case), then the DOJ should not to defend it (or in this case, continue to defend it beyond any appeals to this particular court's ruling).
BUT. In this case, the DOJ is also arguing about the meaning & scope of the Emoluments Clause as it applies (or doesn't) to this or any POTUS, and I think that gives them a big foot in the door. Of course it's disgusting that Trump is using his position to directly profit from his presidency, but it's fair to say that most ex-presidents do the same & so do their relatives. How many books would Michelle Obama sell if she were an unknown Chicago hospital administrator?
The real problem with Trump is that he may be running a massive pay-for-play operation. But of course that's true of nearly every politician today, if on a lesser scale.
Bea,
Thanks.
Agreed. The lines are a little blurry and lawyers often earn their keep by blurring them further.
I see in the emoluments cases the same thing I see in so much (all?) of what the Pretender does, actions which imply, sometimes shout, the question: how much is too much? And if there are no limits to (pick a cardinal sin), then what happens to the legal, a construct which presumably has some tangential connection to moral, foundations of our society?
Can a muddying moment in history be said to be a clarifying one, when the new behavioral standard is no standard at all?
The answer I come up with suggests a bleak future.
PD's comment about Martin Luther King, with a sidebar on Smilin' Scott Pruitt's disavowal of evolution instantly reminded me that we celebrate another anniversary this week. On April 3, 1968, Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" hit the biggest screens in the country. The original aspect ratio, 2.21:1, was the theatrical print most moviegoers saw. There were a few locations that used the 2.35:1 anamorphic prints, often described as Cinerama.
The anamorphic lenses were what allowed compressed images to stretch out to enormous sizes during those days of widescreen cinema, making a bigger image without having to reinvent the projection chain. A nice technological achievement. But one not without its problems.
I mention the technical features of the film's projection format because technology is a major theme in the film, notably, how humans have developed and used it to progress across millions of years. The other major theme is evolution, that thing that many Republican candidates in the last presidential rodeo, and too many in the orbit of the current occupant of the White House, including little mikey pence, believe is a hoax.
"2001" is worth revisiting fifty years on because of its thoughtful and very adult approach to not only science fiction, but to those themes of technology, evolution, and ultimately, what it means to be human. It's complicated.
Anytime you run across a text--a film, a book, a play, a poem, an opera--that encourages many different interpretations, you know you're on to something, and "200"1 certainly does that. What are those monoliths all about? What's HAL's real role? And what the hell is going on during the last 20 minutes? I remember seeing a restored print at Lincoln Center years ago with a friend who insisted that we take mushrooms to watch that last sequence. I declined. The thing was plenty trippy without the 'shrooms.
I could go on for a lot longer about the filmic aspects of "2001" (which, of course, I rarely do...) but I won't because the point here is one that the Trumpbots and the Orange Headed Monster himself fail to accommodate or even understand.
Life is weird. It's complicated. Unintended consequences can kick your ass. But you need to be alive to possibilities, to advances, to progress. The Dawn of Man sequence, in which an ape, after encountering one of the monoliths, figures out that an animal bone can be used as a tool (in this case a weapon), marks a trigger point in evolution. A technological milestone, but one not without its problems (picture Dick Cheney inside that monkey suit).
Kubrick's cut (probably the single most stunning edit in film history) from a bone being thrown in the air to a spaceship millions of years in the future is still startling, and not just as an enthralling visual cue but as a bridge from the past to the present and the future.
Humans progress but still must rely on smarts and logic and be able to respond to difficult and unexpected situations with agility and aplomb, rather than ignorant bombast and bluster. After the computer HAL kills his friend and then tries to off him as well, the astronaut Dave takes out this ostensibly greatest tool in human history with another tool. A screwdriver.
This scene, set inside the "brains" of the HAL 9000, where you hear him beg for his life, then finally revert to his "childhood", showing Dave that he has just learned a new song, "Daisy", which he sings (an amazingly affecting, even emotional scene), reminds us that computers evolve as well.
And make what you will of the famous Star Baby scene. Is it a rebirth of humankind? The first of a race of superhumans? A Christ-like character? Or is it something more complex, more dense, not without hope but also not without complications?
What does it mean to be human? Has the answer changed over millennia? It's worth considering, especially now when we are faced daily (sometimes twice a day) with that question as our "leader" demonstrates his own squalid, deformed sense of what it means to be a (decent) human being.
One of the things I most treasured about the election of Barack Obama (a monolith event, for sure--or perhaps the monolith event was the rise of Martin Luther King, leading to Obama), was the ascension to power of someone who appreciated complexity. A great relief after the absolutism and unqualified and ultimately deadly overconfidence of the Bush Debacle.
It was a moment of great progress, but not without its own problems. Obama wasn't perfect, but that's the point. No one is. The best we can hope for is to be good, decent human beings. To look forward, but with an appreciation of what has come before. What we have now is....not that. By miles. Progress for this guy is an extra half hour of Fox and Friends and the discovery of an unopened bag of Doritos.
Maybe we need another monolith.
Maybe we've already had one.
An interesting read on the Emoluments Clause for anyone with
15 or 20 minutes to spare.
https://wwwbrookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_
emoluments-clause1.pdf
It's from Dec 2016 but goes into detail regarding trump's conflict
of interests versus emoluments.
The most recent Frank Rich 'interview' is up on New York mag: Not one of his most interesting and pithy, but...I did enjoy this excerpt:
" (Nor is there anyone around now to brief the president on the fact that the opening-night viewership for Roseanne, 18 million viewers, didn’t match the 22 million viewers who turned up for Stormy Daniels’s debut on 60 Minutes — a popular-vote disparity of about 4 million, one might say.)
The latest from the Backstabbing Liar.
So, we all know that Joe (I'm not a real Democrat, I just play one on....oh, hell, I'm not a real Democrat, okay?") Manchin has been working mightily to suck up to the orange headed baboon on all but a tiny sliver of issues. But as far as the OHB is concerned, if you don't service his tiny, tiny, tiny member all day every day, you can be thrown under the bus too.
So even though Not a Real Democrat Manchin has been striving to establish his Nazi bona fides with the Trumpbots, the king of the bots is ready to shiv him in the back by supporting murdering ex-con coal pig, Don Blankenship during a "tax policy" something, something, in West Virginia. I'm sure he doesn't have a clue what all they were talking about except that Joe-Democrat (in name only) = BAD, and Ex-Con Coal guy = GOOD.
But Trumpado, in West Virginny Land, has also tried to resurrect that old Confederate canard, proven wrong more times than Trump has cheated on his wives (and that's a SHITLOAD of times), that milyuns and milyuns of voters voted many, many, many times, ergo: FRAUD against the Great Donald!!!
Of course there have been many studies concerning the validity of such claims, all of which turned up a giant goose egg. But that never stops the little dictator from claiming whatever the hell he wants to claim.
In a serious world, this asshole would not be allowed back on to the Stupid Bus. He'd be carted off, with no official complaints, into the Right Wing Confederate Shit Pile and there deposited as the unclaimed turd he is.
But today, he goes to West Virginia and shouts VOTER FRAUD!!
Again.
Without (comme d'habitude) any evidence. That popular vote thing must really bunch his tiny pink panties.
He's claiming that, in states like California, Democrats vote many, many times. Of course he leaves out any proof. He also neglects to mention that in all the states controlled by his Party of Traitors, Democrats are lucky to vote at all. And if they do, their vote counts about as much as the number of times Donaldo has helped the poor.
So what to take away from this?
First, Trump will shove a barbed wire dildo up your ass even if you try to help him out. Second, a vote for anyone but Trump is illegitimate.
Lying Dogs Sleep
It appears that there are two primary qualifications for working for the dictator Trump. First, an insatiable desire to enrich yourself and enjoy the high life at the taxpayers' expense.
Second, and most important?
Lie.
So Scotty Pruitt had no idea that his two closest worker bees at the EPA had been given gigantic raises, by himself. No idea. Hmmm...
Next, we hear that the dictator had no idea that Stormy Daniels, porn star with whom he cheated on his current wife, just after she had given birth to his youngest son, was paid off to keep quiet during his Russian supported grab at the White House. No idea. Not the foggiest. Gee willikers, that's believable.
Little Jeffy Sessions had no idea that he met, several times, with Russian emissaries looking to help his master, Trumpskyev. Couldn't remember. No idea. Oops. Maybe he might have. But nope, can't remember. No idea. Horrible to even suggest such a thing. Horrible.
Former National Security Adviser Mikey Flynn couldn't remember either that he'd been working a scam deal with Russians. Nope. No idea.
Ditto Paul Manafort.
Ben Carson had no idea how in the freakin' hell, sorry Ben, freakin' heck, a $31,000 piece of furniture was ordered for his personal office. Must have been his wife. Yeah. That was it. Or maybe Obama.
Sean Spicer (remember him?) demanded that everyone acknowledge that Trumpkin's coronation drew the largest crowd in history. And he's not kidding. Even when he ducks into the bushes to escape further questions.
Sarah Liarbee Sanders claimed that the census question about citizenship has always been asked. Always! Well, okay, if by "always" you mean the 1950 census and the 2020 census, 70 fucking years later. Well, sure. That's "always" (*cough-cough*).
Trump refers to certain (read: non-white) nations as "shithole countries" in front of his Homeland Security Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, but oops! She never heard any such thing. Must'a said "sheelow countries", right? Whatever the fuck that means.
Betsy DeVos (well, okay, just about everything ol' Bets says is a lie, except, "My oh my, we only made $9 million today on our investments! Shit on a stick!") during her confirmation hearings, was asked about the millions her family foundation (which she partly controls) contributed to anti-gay causes, including crazy-ass conversion therapy Christianist bullshit, said she never heard of any such thing. The idea! She loves teh gayz!
Ryan Zinke, after Trumpado erased over 2 million acres of protected lands from national monument areas, went on the TV machine to declare that it wasn't so! No! Not at all. Not a single square inch of land has been removed from federal protection. Sure. And I was born on Krypton and have super powers under Earth's yellow sun!
And these are only a few of the legion of lies perpetrated by Trump and his lying monkeys.
Greed and mendacity.
You too can work in the Trump cabinet. Hang on, there's sure to be another opening any day now. All you have to do is lie your ass off, then pretend to be asleep when anyone says "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
The answer is probably "Both". They can't help it.
@Ak: So enjoyed your comments on Kubrick's great, powerful film. I remember when I first saw it, the year before the streets in our cities were ablaze by rioter's fury at MLK's death. At least that's how I recall it; those times were fraught with change and a kind of energy that we are seeing today. HAL invaded my thoughts for weeks after and even now I can still hear THAT voice––and yes, what does it mean to be human. I sometimes marvel at our capacities and yet envision us as billions of tiny ants crawling around dung heaps trying to make the grade. You'll have to forgive me–– I watch Nature on PBS and always connect with the other amazing creatures of our world.
And your comment about Obama: What he had was integrity and empathy––two crucial elements lacking not only in this president* but in those that follow that fella whose dream is destruction.