;)
The Commentariat -- September 18, 2019
Late Morning/Afternoon Update:
Richard Pérez-Peña & Edward Wong of the New York Times: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran on Wednesday of having carried out an 'act of war' with aerial strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia last weekend, and he said the United States was working to build a coalition to deter further attacks.... Despite Mr. Pompeo's statement, President Trump pushed back against another American military entanglement in the Middle East, speaking only of unspecified new sanctions on Iran. Asked about a possible American attack on Iran, Mr. Trump told reporters in Los Angeles: 'There are many options. There's the ultimate option and there are options a lot less than that.'"
Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again. No 'guts,' no sense, no vision! A terrible communicator! -- President* Tweetle-Dee-Dee, shortly after the Fed's announcement it would cut rates by a quarter point ~~~
~~ Jeff Cox of CNBC: "The Federal Reserve approved a much-anticipated quarter-point interest rate cut Wednesday but offered few indications that further reductions are ahead as members split on what to do next. Following its two-day policy meeting, the central bank announced that it would take down its benchmark overnight lending rate to a target range of 1.75% to 2%. That comes nearly two months after the policymaking Federal Open Market Committee went ahead with its first cut in 11 years.... Donald Trump, who has called Fed policymakers 'boneheads' for not cutting rates enough, tore into Wednesday's decision, saying Chairman Jay Powell and his colleagues have 'no guts.'" ~~~
~~~ Jeanna Smialek of the New York Times: "Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell, speaking at a news conference said that the United States economy remains strong and unemployment is low but that' there are risks to this positive outlook.' If the economy weakens, a 'more extensive' series of rate cuts would be appropriate, he said.... Mr. Powell said trade uncertainty and geopolitical tensions necessitated action." Mrs. McC: IOW, Thanks, Trump!
Natasha Bertrand & Bryan Bender of Politico: "Since Donald Trump took office, the U.S. military has spent nearly $200,000 at the president's luxury Scotland resort, according to figures and documents the Pentagon provided to the House Oversight Committee. The spending, which has all occurred since August 2017, paid for the equivalent of hundreds of nights of rooms at the Turnberry resort over approximately three dozen separate stays, the committee said.... Nearly three dozen Democratic senators this week co-sponsored a bill that would make it illegal for the federal government to spend taxpayer dollars at properties owned by the president, vice president or members of the Cabinet."
Marianne Levine & Burgess Everett of Politico: "The White House this week began circulating a much-anticipated gun background check proposal to Republicans on Capitol Hill, though it's unclear if ... Donald Trump supports it. The White House's plan would expand background checks to all commercial gun sales, including gun show sales, according to a document obtained by Politico and first reported by The Daily Caller. It's similar to a proposal from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)." ~~~
~~~ Another Presidential* Tweet from the Very Stable Genius*. Quint Forgey of Politico: "... Donald Trump on Wednesday admonished 'Dummy Beto' O'Rourke for impassioned remarks on gun reform he made at last week's primary debate, charging that they complicated the path toward a bipartisan agreement. 'Dummy Beto made it much harder to make a deal,' Trump tweeted. 'Convinced many that Dems just want to take your guns away. Will continue forward!'"
Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Senate spending talks hit another roadblock on Wednesday amid an entrenched fight over funding for President Trump's U.S.-Mexico border wall. Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a bill to fund most of the federal government, marking the latest setback for spending talks with days to go until the Sept. 30 deadline to avoid a shutdown. Senators voted 51-44 on taking up a House-passed bill that was expected to be the vehicle for any Senate funding action, depriving it of the 60 votes needed to overcome the initial hurdle.... Democrats objected to the top-line spending figures over concerns that Republicans were padding extra funding in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill, legislation that has emerged as a perennial point of conflict.... Democratic senators also balked at supporting the defense spending bill because Republicans rejected including an amendment that would have prevented Trump from shifting funding from the military to the border wall without congressional sign-off."
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "President Trump on Wednesday selected Robert C. O'Brien, the State Department's chief hostage negotiator, to become his national security adviser, moving to reconstitute his foreign policy staff even as he faces rising tension with Iran. In choosing Mr. O'Brien to replace John R. Bolton..., the president chose a Los Angeles lawyer who had impressed him with his work to extricate Americans detained by countries like North Korea and Turkey. But it is not clear how different his advice will be from his predecessor given that Mr. O'Brien previously worked for Mr. Bolton and has cited his hawkish views in the past. Mr. Trump announced the selection on Twitter shortly after saying he would also 'substantially increase Sanctions' on Iran after weekend attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia that officials in Washington and the region have blamed on the Tehran government." CNN's story is here. Mrs. McC: Yes, because "substantially increasing sanctions" (or "Sanctions") on Iran has been such an effective strategy.
Paul Schemm of the Washington Post: "BREAKING: At a news conference in Riyadh, [a] spokesman displayed debris of what he said were Iranian-made weapons used in Saturday's attacks and said the strikes on the oil facilities 'did not originate in Yemen.'"
Jonathan Chait: "Elizabeth Warren is not leading the polls (yet), but she is on a trajectory to win the Democratic presidential nomination. She is well-liked by supporters of other candidates, giving her room to grow. And the sequence of votes gives her an enormous advantage over Joe Biden; the first two states are heavily white, giving her a chance to build momentum before Biden's minority-heavy support base has its say.... At the moment, I'd feel very nervous betting the future of American democracy on Warren's ability to defeat Trump. But a lot can change in a year, and it's not hard to imagine the Warren of 2020 as a potent challenger." Chait assesses Warren's pluses & minuses re: electability.
Elena Schneider of Politico: "Fifty-eight U.S. mayors announced their endorsements of Pete Buttigieg, giving the South Bend, Ind., mayor a boost of institutional support for his presidential campaign. In a USA Today op-ed, the current and former mayors, including some who have already publicly backed Buttigieg, called for 'a great mayor in the White House.' The column -- written by Mayors Steve Adler of Austin, Texas; Christopher Cabaldon of West Sacramento, Calif.; and Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio -- emphasizes Buttigieg's bipartisan credentials and executive experience." Here's the op-ed.
All Things Are Possible. Simon Romero & Dana Goldstein of the New York Times: "In one of the boldest state-led efforts to expand access to higher education, New Mexico is unveiling a plan on Wednesday to make tuition at its public colleges and universities free for all state residents, regardless of family income." Here's a Slate story.
There's Corruption & There's "Corruption." digby points out that the New York Times' headline writer doesn't know the difference. Thanks to Akhilleus for the link, and see his commentary below. As Akhilleus suggests, when we get into general-election mode, watch the "elite liberal media" spill buckets of ink on all the faults, or "faults" of the Democratic nominee.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ Nicholas Fandos & Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "After initially stonewalling Democrats' questions, Mr. Lewandowski appeared to abruptly change strategies, confirming the details of a key episode from the Mueller investigation -- and even providing new information that wasn't in the special counsel's report. Under questioning by Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia, Mr. Lewandowski said he never relayed the message because he went on a beach vacation with his children.... Mr. Lewandowski began his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee with remarks that sounded more like a campaign speech than testimony in a congressional investigation.... Given that he has been considering a run for the Senate from New Hampshire for the last several weeks, Mr. Lewandowski and his allies see the hearing as an opportunity to promote his allegiance to Mr. Trump in a way that could benefit him politically.... During a break that he requested, he tweeted out a link to a website for a new super PAC that was created today, 'Stand With Corey.'... Almost immediately, Mr. Lewandowski made clear he intended to do whatever he could to slow down the proceedings, including demanding that Democrats read him the section of the Mueller report about which they were questioning him.... At the tail-end of the hearing, Barry H. Berke, a well-regarded white-collar defense attorney who has taken a leave from his New York law firm to consult for the committee, unleashed a rapid-fire cross-examination in which he quickly established that Mr. Lewandowski had lied in an interview earlier this year when he said he couldn't recall any conversation he had with Mr. Trump about Mr. Sessions.... It was only one of several moments in which Mr. Berke plainly got under the skin of Mr. Lewandowski, who mentioned repeatedly that he did not have a law degree from Harvard, as Mr. Berke does." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: I listened to the first half hour of the "hearing" but had to turn it off because Lewandowski was so obnoxious. I thought Nadler should have held Lewandowski in contempt. Update: Joyce Vance called Lewandowski "one of the smarmiest witnesses I've ever seen on the stand," and Vance, a former prosecutor, no doubt has heard a lot of smarmy witnesses. ~~~
~~~ The Times' full story, by Nicholas Fandos, is here. ~~~
~~~ Rachel Bade, et al., of the Washington Post: "Trump, who was watching, applauded Lewandowski on Twitter, writing that he gave a 'beautiful' opening statement. But Lewandowski's defiance and disregard for Democrats' impeachment inquiry also prompted a contempt threat from Democrats. 'Mr. Lewandowski, your behavior in this hearing room has been completely unacceptable,' House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. 'You have shown the public that the Trump administration will do anything and everything in its power to obstruct the work of the Congress.'... Under questioning, Lewandowski routinely asked for page numbers, feigned ignorance and otherwise dodged questions from Democrats." ~~~
~~~ Mary Jalonick & Laurie Kellman of the AP: "The hearing underscores what has been a central dilemma for the House Judiciary Committee all year as they investigate -- and potentially try to impeach -- Trump. Many of the Democrats' base supporters want them to move quickly to try to remove Trump from office. But the White House has blocked their oversight requests at almost every turn, declining to provide new documents or allow aides and associates to testify." ~~~
~~~ Andrew Desiderio & Kyle Cheney of Politico: "... the hearing armed Democrats with what they see as key ammunition in their drive toward impeachment of the president. House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) suggested that Lewandowski's refusal to answer questions about his conversations with Trump -- at the behest of the White House -- bolsters Democrats; case to impeach the president.... 'When you refuse to answer these questions, you are obstructing the work of our committee. You are also proving our point for the American people to see: The president is intent on obstructing our legitimate oversight. You are aiding him in that obstruction,' Nadler told Lewandowski. 'And I will remind you that Article 3 of the impeachment against President [Richard] Nixon was based on obstruction of Congress,' Nadler added.... In 2017, Trump deputized Lewandowski to approach then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and order him either to restrict Mueller's probe to future interference by Russia or be removed from his Cabinet post. Lewandowski, though, told Mueller he didn't want to deliver that message to Sessions, so he asked former top White House aide Rick Dearborn to pass it along instead. Dearborn never followed through, Mueller found. In his review of the episode, Mueller found that Trump's actions met all the criteria that would typically result in an obstruction of justice charge." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Dearborn was summoned to appear at today's hearing, but Trump directed him not to appear, citing fake executive privilege. Surely any conversation Dearborn had with Lewandowski, who was not a federal employee, cannot be subject to actual executive privilege. ~~~
~~~ Sarah Ferris, et al., of Politico: "In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned lawmakers and aides with a swipe at Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee. Pelosi criticized the panel's handling of impeachment in harsh terms, complaining committee aides have advanced the push for ousting ... Donald Trump far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands. Democrats simply don't have the votes on the floor to impeach Trump, Pelosi said. 'And you can feel free to leak this,' Pelosi added, according to multiple people in the room.... It was the latest sign of the widening schism between Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies who are increasingly in conflict over where to guide the party at one of its most critical moments."
Julian Barnes & Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times: "The acting director of national intelligence will not testify before Congress this week or immediately hand over a whistle-blower complaint to lawmakers, escalating a standoff between Capitol Hill and leaders of the intelligence agencies. The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, demanded in a cryptic letter on Friday that Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, turn over a whistle-blower complaint made to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies. Mr. Schiff asked in his letter whether the underlying conduct involved 'the president or those around him.' But Mr. Schiff has said he cannot discuss the content of the complaint.... Other lawmakers said they did not know the complaint's details.... The inspector general for the intelligence agencies has already begun investigating the complaint and alerted the intelligence committees." ~~~
~~~ Kyle Cheney of Politico: "The nation's top intelligence official has refused to comply with a House Intelligence Committee subpoena to provide the contents of a whistleblower complaint a government watchdog deemed 'urgent' and credible, the panel's chairman, Adam Schiff, said late Tuesday. The California Democrat warned the agency might be acting to conceal high-level wrongdoing by ... Donald Trump or his immediate advisers.... Schiff ripped [Joseph] Maguire for breaching a law that requires him to share with Congress any whistleblower complaint deemed urgent by the intelligence community's inspector general. He said the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved Trump or other senior executive branch officials." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: All kidding aside, it's time to send the Capitol police out to lock up a few Trump regime recalcitrants. The cell in the basement of the capitol building may have been repurposed, but I propose the House buy a lock for a windowless room & lay out some narrow cots. Trump's lawless sidekicks should not be walking free.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs & Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "The White House on Tuesday fired John Mitnick, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, after months of shake-up at an agency responsible for carrying out President Trump's immigration agenda.... The White House this year has turned the Department of Homeland Security ... into a revolving door of officials, creating a void of permanent leadership. A Trump administration official said Tuesday evening that Chad Mizelle, an associate counsel to the president, would replace Mr. Mitnick. But a Department of Homeland Security official said later that Joseph B. Maher, the department's principal deputy general counsel, would be taking over.... Mr. Mitnick's ouster was prompted by the White House general counsel's office as opposed to Stephen Miller..., an administration official said. But two other people briefed on the events disputed this account...." ~~~
~~~ Aris Folley of the Hill: "Mitnick, who was nominated to the post by President Trump in 2017 and confirmed by the Senate the following year, was the department's fifth general counsel." Mrs. McC: They really don't know what they're doing.
Coral Davenport of the New York Times: "The Trump administration is expected on Wednesday to formally revoke California's legal authority to set tailpipe pollution rules that are stricter than federal rules, in a move designed by the White House to strike twin blows against both the liberal-leaning state that President Trump has long antagonized and the environmental legacy of President Barack Obama. The announcement that the White House will revoke one of California's signature environmental policies will come while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley.... Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, wrote in an email: 'California will continue its advance toward a cleaner future. We're prepared to defend the standards that make that promise a reality.'" The Reuters report is here. (Also linked yesterday.)
Deirdre Shesgreen & David Jackson of USA Today: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is heading to the Middle East Tuesday as the Trump administration again sent mixed messages about how the U.S. would respond to the crippling attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure.... Pompeo is scheduled to arrive in Jeddah on Wednesday, where he will meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom's de facto ruler, to discuss the oil facility attacks and to 'coordinate efforts to counter Iranian aggression in the region,' the State Department said Tuesday in announcing the trip.... Several Democrats said Trump's decision to withdraw from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement with Iran and reimpose crippling sanctions on Tehran has helped spark the current crisis. They warned against any military action over the destruction of Saudi oil facilities." ~~~
~~~ David Sanger of the New York Times: "Over the next few days or weeks, [Donald Trump] will almost certainly face the reality that much of the world -- angry at his tweets, tirades, untruths and accusations -- could be disinclined to believe the arguments advanced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others that Iran bears responsibility for the attack.... The Saudis seem to sense the credibility problem. Even they have not yet publicly followed Mr. Pompeo in accusing Iran of responsibility. In a statement on Monday, the Saudi government urged an international investigation, led by the United Nations, to determine responsibility. That move, unusual for a country that disdains the United Nations almost as much as the Trump administration does, seemed an acknowledgment that the world would not take Mr. Trump's word, nor that of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.... For Mr. Trump, the suspicions about any American assessment of responsibility will be colored by another problem: European officials blame him, as much as the Iranians, for creating the circumstances that led to the attack.... Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, said on Tuesday that the best strategy for defusing tensions with Iran was for Mr. Trump to back down. 'The deal to stop Iran from acquiring military nuclear capabilities is a building block we need to get back to,' she said." ~~~
~~~ Eric Schmitt of the New York Times: "American intelligence analysts and military investigators are examining a missile guidance mechanism recovered in Saudi Arabia that may provide clues as to the missile's origins and flight path, as they continue gathering information to make the administration's case that Iran was responsible for last weekend's attack against Saudi oil facilities. Analysts are poring over satellite imagery of the damage sites, and assessing radar tracks of at least some of the low-flying cruise missiles that were used. Communication intercepts from before and after the attacks are being reviewed to see if they implicate Iranian officials. And, perhaps most important, forensic analysis is underway of missile and drone parts from the attack sites, including at least one mostly intact cruise missile recovered from the area, officials said." (Also linked yesterday.)
Whatever Happened to Progressive Pelosi? Berkeley Lovelace of CNBC: "Democrats should focus on making improvements to Obamacare instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with 'Medicare for All,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday.... Pelosi's thoughts on how to improve the nation's health-care laws appear to align with those of former Vice President Joe Biden, who in his 2020 presidential bid is calling for building on provisions of Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act. 'I believe the path to "health care for all" is a path following the lead of the Affordable Care Act,' Pelosi told [CNBC]. 'Let's use our energy to have health care for all Americans, and that involves over 150 million families that have it through the private sector.'"
Presidential Race 2020
No Job for an Old Man. Bill Barrow of the AP: "Weeks shy of his 95th birthday, former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday he doesn't believe he could have managed the most powerful office in the world at 80 years old. Carter, who earlier this year became the longest-lived chief executive in American history, didn't tie his comments to any of his fellow Democrats running for president, but two leading 2020 candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, would turn 80 during their terms if elected. Biden is 76. Sanders is 78. 'I hope there's an age limit,' Carter said with a laugh as he answered audience questions during his annual report at the Carter Center in Atlanta. 'If I were just 80 years old, if I was 15 years younger, I don't believe I could undertake the duties I experienced when I was president.'... At 73..., Donald Trump ... [was] the oldest newly elected president in history and would become the oldest president to be reelected.... Carter said he remains undecided in the 2020 primary. 'I'm going to keep an open mind,' he said, explaining that he wants to vote for a candidate who pledges to make the U.S. the world's leading champion for peace, human rights and equality. 'One of the major factors I will have in my mind is who can beat Trump,' he added, noting that he'll vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election regardless."
Daniella Diaz & Gregory Krieg of CNN: "It had been hours since Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrapped her speech here in Manhattan, but ... Warren stuck around deep into the New York night on Monday, taking photos with each person who'd waited in line -- a process that took nearly fives times as long as the candidate spent delivering an impassioned anti-corruption address to the thousands who filled the park. The Warren 'selfies' -- the photos she takes with voters, framed and snapped by a campaign aide as other staffers hustle supporters through, handling their bags and phones, so Warren can take as many photos as quickly as possible -- have become a political phenomenon. It's one that manages to be both savvy and kitschy, exhausting and exhilarating.... A Warren aide told CNN on Tuesday that she took about 4,000 'selfies' after her New York rally and has now, since kicking off her campaign last winter, posed for more than 59,000 of them in all. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Cristina Cabrera of TPM: "According to a pool report, Trump downplayed the crowd size at Warren's rally in Washington Square Park, which her campaign estimated to be about 20,000 people -- the senator's biggest rally to date. 'Number one, she didn't have 20,000 people,' Trump told reporters, per the pool report. 'And number two, I think anybody would get a good crowd there.'... Trump, notoriously sensitive over the size of his own crowds, then claimed he gets crowds 'in areas that nobody's ever seen crowds before.'" Mrs. McC: Trump could draw a crowd of 20,000 protesters at Washington Square.
Yvonne Sanchez of the Arizona Republic: "Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is facing a censure vote from the Arizona Democratic Party, brought by progressives who deem her politics too accommodating to ... Donald Trump at the expense of Democratic values. Sinema, D-Ariz., built a moderate political brand during her three terms in the House of Representatives, which has extended to her early days in the Senate. According to the FiveThirtyEight Trump Tracker, she has opposed Trump while in the Senate 81% of the time. In the House, she supported Trump's agenda 54% of the time. While Sinema's political centrism has earned her Republican support, it has grated on progressives -- some of whom silently protested her during a state fundraising dinner in downtown Phoenix. Democratic state committeemen will consider the resolution on Saturday, at the Arizona Democratic Party's quarterly meeting. They cite in particular her vote to confirm Trump's nominee, David Bernhardt, to serve as secretary of the Interior, and her vote to confirm William Barr as U.S. attorney general."
Douglas Martin of the New York Times: "Sander Vanocur, the television newsman who became familiar to American viewers as a prominent White House correspondent during the Kennedy administration and as a tough questioner in presidential debates, died on Monday night in a hospice facility in Santa Barbara, Calif. He was 91." (Also linked yesterday.)
Neil Genzlinger of the New York Times: "Cokie Roberts, the pioneering broadcast journalist known to millions for her work with ABC News and NPR, died on Tuesday. She was 75.... Ms. Roberts started her radio career at CBS, then began working for NPR in 1978, covering Capitol Hill. She joined ABC in 1988. Her three decades at the network included anchoring, with Sam Donaldson, the Sunday morning news program 'This Week' from 1996 to 2002.... Michelle and Barack Obama, in a statement, called Ms. Roberts 'a trailblazing figure; a role model to young women at a time when the profession was still dominated by men; a constant over 40 years of a shifting media landscape and changing world, informing voters about the issues of our time and mentoring young journalists every step of the way.'" Roberts' ABC News obituary is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Update. Then There Was This. I never met her. She never treated me nicely. But I would like to wish her family well. She was a professional, and I respect professionals.... Never treated me well, but I certainly respect her as a professional. -- Donald Trump, on Air Force 1
Thanks, Donald, for demonstrating why I like to be polite or noncommittal about the deceased, even when I didn't like them when they were alive, at least in the days immediately following news of their deaths. -- Mrs. Bea McCrabbie
Hey, Right-to-Lifers/Climate Deniers. What About This? Morgan Gstalter of the Hill: "Air pollution has the potential to travel from a pregnant woman's lungs to the fetal side of the placenta, according to a new study. Researchers at Hasselt University in Belgium in a study reported in Nature Communications found sootlike black carbon, a type of particle pollutant, on placentas donated by new mothers. The placenta is a temporary organ that acts as a natural barrier between a mother and the fetus during pregnancy." (Also linked yesterday.)
Matt Wilstein of the Daily Beast: "Sean Spicer Has Most Embarrassing 'Dancing With the Stars' Debut Ever, Period.... Spicer was paired up with season 25 champion dancer Lindsay Arnold, who described her partner as dancing at a 'pre-pre-school level,' adding, 'He definitely isn't natural at it.'" Mrs. McC: Seinfeld's puffy shirt was less ridiculous. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Uh, Jesus Made Him Do It. Joe Concha of the Hill: "Former White House press secretary and current 'Dancing with the Stars' contestant Sean Spicer on Tuesday implored viewers on Twitter to vote for him to 'send a message to #Hollywood that those of us who stand for #Christ won't be discounted.' Spicer made the call after his viral debut on Monday night that included him performing to a Spice Girls song while wearing a neon puffy shirt." (Also linked yesterday.)
Beyond the Beltway
North Carolina. Meagan Flynn of the Washington Post: "Granville County Sheriff Brindell Wilkins learned one of his deputies had a tape of him making 'racially offensive' comments, prosecutors say. So the North Carolina lawman encouraged another man to kill the officer, according to a felony indictment revealed late Monday night. 'The only way you gonna stop him is kill him,' Wilkins allegedly told the would-be shooter in a 2014 recorded phone call about a plan to kill former deputy Joshua Freeman. The plot was not carried out. Wilkins is charged with two felony counts of obstruction of justice charges for his failure to arrest the unnamed person or report the threat on Freeman's life, and for also allegedly giving the man advice about how to get away with the killing. Wilkins has been sheriff of the small county in northern North Carolina, where the biggest town is home to about 8,400 people, since 2009 and was most recently reelected in 2018. Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman, who brought the charges, told the News & Observer that Wilkins is still the sheriff." Slate has a story here. (Also linked yesterday.)
Way Beyond
David Halbfinger & Isabel Kershner of the New York Times: "Israel's election was too close to call early Wednesday, with neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his main rival, the former army chief Benny Gantz, a centrist, immediately commanding enough support to form a majority coalition, according to exit polls. But Mr. Gantz's Blue and White party appeared to have come out ahead of Mr. Netanyahu's conservative Likud, giving a small third party the power to decide the outcome. And his avowed desire to force a unity coalition including both their parties made it likely that, if the projections held, Mr. Gantz would be given the first chance of forming a government. The murky outcome itself was a humiliating blow to Mr. Netanyahu, 69, the nation's longest-serving prime minister, who forced the do-over election when he failed to assemble a coalition in May, rather than let Mr. Gantz have a try." The AP story is here. ~~~
~~~ Anshel Pfeffer of Haaretz: "After what looks like an almost certain failure to secure a majority coalition in Israel's Tuesday election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't need anyone to tell him about the murmurings within Likud that his own party should start thinking about a change in leadership. He suspects they are there, and have been for a while. As he arrived at the party's campaign headquarters at Expo Tel Aviv, greeting senior Likudniks with forced, tight-lipped smiles, the heavy makeup he wore could not mask the tiredness on his face from days of relentless campaigning and long hours of non-stop online Likud TV broadcasts, in which he harangued right-wingers to go out and vote. Netanyahu's speech at a Likud rally, delivered more than five hours after voting ended and exit poll results spelled doom, was a carefully measured attempt to reassert his leadership, while acknowledging, without saying it in so many words, that matters have changed. Perhaps irrevocably."
Share Article
Reader Comments (25)
This is nice. Greta fist-bumps Barry.
@unwashed: Don’t wander down to the comments. The hate is swift, strong, and stupid.
The Founding Fathers were Repugnants, too?
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/18/new-study-trumps-electoral-college-win-was-no-fluke-and-is-likely-to-happen-again/
Again, I wonder what they'd think about what they did to us?
Of course, the Federalist Society and that gang of soft-brained Founder worshipers thinks the Founders were so wise they could see clearly hundreds of years into the future and truly had our emerging corporate and minority party controlled state in mind.
Really?
@Procopius: Someplace credible (I forget where) put the number at 143 in favor this week. I do think there may be a chicken-and-egg effect here: that is, as long as the leadership opposes impeachment, some members who may favor it will not say so publicly. That was certainly the case in the early days; remember how we read a lot of leaks about Nadler's trying to convince Pelosi to back impeachment, even though publicly Nadler was toeing her line?
Some more reality for the Pretender to ignore.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/opinion/recession-latin-america.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
"They say" the Pretender is lazy, but methinks that's a bad rap, fake news in fact. It takes a lot of work to ignore so many things. Reality is so ubiquitous, so inevitable, it keeps coming at you from every side, sometimes in dribs and drabs, sometimes with the power of a loaded freight train.
And all that constant effort to hold it at bay has got to tire a guy out.
Only genuine heroes like the Pretender can do it.
@Nisky Guy: Okay, I bit. Not only are the comments stupid & ignorant, they are remarkably ungrammatical. Not only does Trump love the poorly-educated, the poorly-educated despise Obama. As our great President George Bush has asked, "Is our children learning?" No, they is not.
(I'll concede that some of the commenters may not be English-speakers & perhaps -- all indications to the contrary -- they're super-articulate, thoughtful & brainy in their native languages.)
@Ken Winkes: You're completely discounting the high likelihood that the Founders were time-traveling Trumpbots (who somehow got a tad more articulate than the naysayers on the YouTube Greta-Barack video). I have been to Mount Vernon & Monticello. It irks me that the museums' curators are hiding the original owners' MAGA caps.
Well, scrap the "throwing in the towel" from yesterday. I watched the whole damn hearing yesterday with breaks here and there. Before Barry broke the cycle of circus antics that smarmy, arrogant, splenetic piece of dung held court as though he had purchase–-as though he could dismiss anything or anyone who dared accuse him of helping the King obstruct justice. It's telling that his fealty to Trump wasn't strong enough to put himself in harm's way––sending another lap dog like Dearborn to do his dirty work because he knew it was wrong. Here is a man whose inferiority is so apparent ––"I never went to Harvard..." therefore that chip on his shoulder gets heavier and heavier as he tries so hard to be somebody he isn't.
The Republicans–-mainly Collins whose hissy fits ––especially with that southern twang which adds just the right amount of venom––tried like hell to stop the procedures––but they failed ––their tails between their legs as they watched Barry Berke take over and wipe that smugness right off of Cory's countenance.
Some have said that hearings like this should have consultant attorneys question witnesses first. I disagree. If it's necessary to have every member do their 5 minutes (would be good to have only a small number) and at the end bring in the big gun to finish with a flourish–-shoot the moon, as it were. Much more effective, I think.
P.S. Warms me heart to know that Bibi is blubbering a bit.
P.P/S/ at yesterday's hearing several Republicans once again blamed Obama for "not protecting this country from Russian interference in 2016"–-therefore it's all Obama's fault–-Trump had nothing to do with it. No one––not one democrat reminded these elephants that it was McConnell who refused to bring this to the senate floor because it would disrupt the coming elections or some crazy excuse like that.
Oh, and when I read today what Trump said about Warren's crowd–-dismissing it as such because "I get crowds nobody has ever seen before" it struck me that this "besting" on everything–-you name it, he has done it bigger and better than any president before him–-even his towers need to be the tallest–-he fits in so nicely with someone like Lewandowski whose inferiority is so apparent. No wonder Trump smelled a comrade and vise versa.
@PD Pepe: Great description (and analysis) of Lewandowski. And thanks for being brave enough to watch the whole hearing, so I didn't have to.
@NiskyGuy, had you not said anything I wouldn't have looked. I did and I agree. To them I say, "Fuck 'em."
She'll be appearing at the Joint Hearing on Climate Change Leadership shortly. You can watch on C-span.
PD,
I think what the little king meant was "I get crowds nobody sees" which means he then has his goons go out and declare that "Of course there was a gigantic crowd there for the king. You didn't see them? Are you blind?" Either that, or he breaks out his reality-denying Sharpie and pencils them in himself.
Every day, sometimes several times each day, Trumpy reminds everyone of what a supreme jackass he is. He is the epitome of the vulgar, uncivil, crude, rude, base, disrespectful asswipe. Talk about a left-handed compliment. He can't even open his mouth for any reason without finding a way to insult the person he's talking about--even someone with impeccable credentials, someone beloved in her field and respected across the board--and making it all about him. "She wasn't nice to me." Oh yeah? Come talk to me, asshole. I'll show what "not nice" is all about. And by the way. If she wasn't nice, there's probably an excellent reason.
The Complete Douchebag.
Listening to the stories about Cokie Roberts, I heard a clip from some interview in which someone asked her about the difference between the Washington of today and that of when she first started her career. She said that, of course, it's vastly different today. She pointed to the vicious partisanship abroad today as the primary difference.
And it struck me that one of the things that always irked me (just a bit) about those old "This Week" shows on ABC's Sunday morning lineup, was how relatively nice everyone always was to those on the right who would come on and lie through their teeth. This, of course, is still the rule of the day. R's come on and simply make shit up, or they point fingers at Democrats and lie about everything.
The hosts tend to nod sagely and say something like "Well, both sides...blah, blah, blah..." after which they are subjected to a tirade of protests and lies. This has been going on for a generation, and unfortunately, Cokie was part of this trend. Oh, she would stand up at times when things got too outrageous, but too often I'd find myself yelling at the TV along the lines of "WTF! How can you let this asshole get away with this?"
Don't get me wrong. I loved Cokie Roberts for what she was doing and I always admired her ability to elbow her way into the private men's club that political reporting had always been.
But listening to her very accurate assessment about the withering partisanship, I wanted, again, to yell at the radio (oh, wait, I actually did yell at the radio...) that the onset of that partisanship is about 90% the fault of confederates. They are the ones who began the lying and finger pointing and the destruction of government from the inside out for power and personal profit. I only WISH Democrats had the balls to stand up to their bullshit (I STILL wish for this!) and take up for themselves.
Cokie, unlike anyone on something like Fox or, for that matter, any right-wing media outlet, was able to accommodate and explicate the subtleties and nuances of political life. And like many Democrats, she would take the time to try to explain how things worked. Not Republicans. Their goal was never (and still isn't) to explain anything to voters. Their goal is to hoodwink voters and to win at all costs. If that means putting a moron in power, so be it.
But there's no "both sides" here. All you need to do is watch five minutes of that ridiculous hearing yesterday. Democrats attempt to elicit a straight answer from Lewandowski and he insults them, lies to them, and refuses to answer. This is not a "both sides are the same" moment.
There is only one side that acts like that. Maybe Cokie knew this all along, but she was too much of a professional to stoop to their level. Still and all, she'll be missed.
And about that hearing...
It's nice that Nadler finally told that lying piece of shit that his behavior was completely unacceptable.
Great. That and five bucks will get me a latte something something at Starbucks (hopefully one that doesn't call the cops on black guys).
Democrats don't like that behavior? Hold this motherfucker in contempt. As Marie suggests, put his ass in a cell. Every five year old figures out that a parent nagging them to stop something doesn't mean anything until there's a consequence. Lewandowski might have the emotional maturity of a five year old, but he's not going to change his behavior until there's a consequence. He wants to run for the Senate? Arrest his ass. Throw the book at him. Make him a pariah.
Jesus, these Democrats.
I give up. They are NEVER going to do anything about the Orange Menace. These impeachment hearings are a joke. Trump has his goons lie and refuse to answer and nothing is done about it.
I'm so sick of this shit.
If this was a Democrat being impeached, R's would go after him or her day and night, hammer and tong. Oh wait. They already did that, remember? And anyone who refused to answer, they'd lock up.
Democrats? They say "You better shape up, young man." "Yeah. Okay (*snicker*).Whatever you say..."
Ridiculous.
@Akhilleus: The contrast between the Obamas' remembrance of Cokie Roberts & Trump's is emblematic of the difference between a President and a president*. I was betting Cokie said something that was "not nice" about the Obamas, but there was nary a hint of that in their message of condolences.
For the fun of it, I googled "obama cokie roberts 2008," and here's the first thing that came up: David Kurtz in TPM, August 2008: "Tut-tutting over the timing of Barack Obama’s family vacation, Cokie Roberts yesterday on ABC’s This Week added that Hawaii was not an appropriate destination: too foreign and too exotic. “I know Hawaii is a state, but …” Roberts declared, while insisting Obama vacation in some place like Myrtle Beach, S.C." This is the typical kind of "analysis" Roberts was famous for, but the Obamas probably don't even remember it, much less harbor a grudge about it.
The NY Times continues to mislead.
Digby points to a headline which touts speeches by both Elizabeth Warren and Trump in which both talk about corruption.
But not really, right? Then why make the headline appear that that is the case? Both siderism? Stupidity? Journalistic indolence? All of the above?
Warren talks about real corruption. The McTurtle-Trump-Barr-confederate kind of corruption. Fatty yaps about some amorphous, fantasy "corruption of the past", meaning any Democrat who is against him.
One is corruption. The other is "corruption". But if you scanned the Times headline, it appears that both speakers are dealing with the kind without quotes.
Thanks, Times. You helped get him elected once, why not go for broke? Maybe it's time for a twelve part series on Hillary's emails.
One wonders if trump's use of "corruption" is along the lines of Boris Johnson telling tales of painting toy buses as a hobby, which John Oliver posits was a search-engine misdirection ploy to get pictures of him in front of the Brexit Bus wiped off the first page of search results.
Pollute the word-o-sphere with bullshit related to the thing you don't want people to find.
By the way, typing "Boris Johnson Bus" into the googles brings up images of him in front of the red Brexit bus but all of the videos and story links are about the hobby.
How about we make impeachment bipartisan? Hold hearings and display all the evidence. Show how Donald obstructed justice time and again. Show how the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to help Donald. Show all the money flowing into Donald's pockets from sources foreign and domestic. Play the tape of him discussing paying off pornstars and the guilty plea of his former attorney for campaign finance violations. Show all his abuse of power, stealing wall money, fake national emergencies to attack allies like Canada, and his dangling pardons for evil doers. Go to Kinkos and display a big timeline of when everything went down and when events became public. Then have a vote to impeach Trump for all his wrong doing AND hold a vote on impeachment for Nancy Pelosi for the high crime of failing to uphold her oath of office and protecting the Constitution. She has protected Trump for too long and and failed the people.
I would also love to see the Jim Jordans and the rest of the GOP deal with an impeachment vote against Pelosi. Either they vote to convict her and (tactically at least) admit that she shielded Donald's illegal behavior or they vote to acquit Pelosi and protect the woman they have been demonizing for so many years.
I haven't heard many people challenging Biden or now Pelosi on their lack of ability to improve the ACA up until now. In the decade since it was passed the GOP has done a fine job of undermining the law, but the Democrats have failed over and over to strengthen the law. Has Biden or Pelosi found the magical formula that will get their ideas through Congress? Do they have some new strategy to trick the opposition into voting to make the ACA better? Pointing out the benefits for the people of the many changes proposed to Obamacare has not moved the Republicans to do the right thing, so what is different this time? Hoping and wishing for the opposition to do the right thing will never work. And we have seen how effective all those show votes do for the Democrats.
@RAS: As long as Mitch McConnell is majority leader & Donald Trump is president*, no even mildly progressive laws will be enacted. The whole premise behind Biden's & Pelosi's hope of improving the ACA is that it will happen when there is a Democratic president, Senate & House -- AND the Supremes won't find a reason* to deem the improvements unconstitutional. Although there are some things a Democratic president can do by executive order, there is very little the federal government can do to improve the lives of ordinary people when Republicans hold any power at all. That's, as they say, where we're at.
I was fortunate enough to be at work yesterday, so missed the jerkwater testifying yesterday. I don't know why they even bothered. When I saw clips, all he did was moan and bitch that he couldn't betray his Dear Leader, over and over. Just his face makes me lose my lunch. He has a mean little slit for a mouth-- he's like a little poisonous snake. Just the type of person you hope will get hit by a bus. Add that to the clips of the New Mexico rally, and I am (again) aghast that these are the types of people chosen to run our country, or as Dump says, OW-er country, lips pushed out, blahblahblah... I thought we had the presidunce tagged as a sociopath, unable to say words or express thoughts in the right order to make any sense, riffing like a lunatic, but possibly he has crossed to psychopath? He would have every Democrat in the country killed if he thought it could keep him on his throne. He can't perform in any instance requiring social skills of any kind, because whatever might have been there, MAYBE?? are degraded. Yes, AK, we all hate him, with good reason. And we aren't happy with the Dems either, for all the reasons stated. Back to my library book. We leave for Portugal and Spain soon-- hope to not hear Dump's voice for some weeks-- we need a break.
Jeanne,
"Just the type of person you hope will get hit by a bus."
Hahahahahahaha...
Okay. That was a good one. I needed that. Thanks.
So what are you reading? Sez one old library denizen to another.
I read somewhere recently that libraries (the real thing) will shortly be a thing of the past, replaced by digital antiquaries. Surely not. Hopefully not.
There's something about wandering through the stacks, sitting at a library table with your selected treasures, poring over your booty, or pulling up a seat in the reference department to scan the Reader's Guide or some volume of the Britannica alongside other book nerds (and the occasional homeless person, some of whom I've found to be amazingly literate and quite interesting--which calls to mind the inhumanity behind the little king's decision to sweep the homeless into some sort of animal cages out in California--many of whom his tiny snake brain couldn't, on his best day, approach for intellect or decency or basic humanity).
There's something about wending one's way through the stacks of old books, the smell of the paper and the leather bindings, the glimpses of absorbed readers delving into their own personal literary paradise, the long rows of tomes, each offering a panoply of stunning universes of knowledge, experience, emotion, understanding, burgeoning bouquets of humanity that would be nearly impossible to reproduce on a server.
I still retain the essentials of the old Dewey Decimal System. It never bothered me that I'd be navigating from the 100's (philosophy) to the 900's (history) because it meant I'd be piloting my skiff through languages, science, technology, art, and literature. No hardship, as my mother used to say.
The problem with a digital library is similar to the problem with online newspapers. Used to be, you'd pick up the Sunday Times and wander through local and international news, business, arts, opinion, fashion, travel, books, etc. and run across stuff you would never have ferreted out on your own. But as you turn the pages, you'd spy an interesting article on a Middle East village or some ongoing science experiment in desalinization that would never have come your way otherwise. Same with wandering through the stacks. You might never have chosen to pick up a book of the letters of Walter Lippmann, but three hours later, at a library table, you were damn happy you did.
Ah, me.
Anyway, I'm one of those people who, on trains or buses or planes, is indefatigably interested in what other people are reading. Just checking out the zeitgeist, me brothers and sisters. And, when seeing someone reading some bullshit about how great Trump is, hoping (sort of) that they might get hit by a bus. Sort of.
Or at least scared shitless by it.
(Last time I visited the NY Public Library on Fifth Ave, I showed the lady at the desk my old library card. She laughed. "Oh" she said, "You're one of the old-timers".
Yup.)
@Marie: good for you to bring back the Obama/ Hawaii mention by Cokie. When I learned of her death yesterday I thought of the many times I listened to her pontificate on issues and politicians and remembered an edge there that I sometimes felt–-it was if she was right on her assessments and perhaps she might have been but it was that tone, that dismissal of other prospectives that bothered me. However––she was obviously beloved and did great things and you're absolutely right about the Obama's graciousness ––something Trump is completely ignorant of.