The Commentariat -- January 9, 2018
As the Sheeples Cheer. Michael Shear & Jim Tankersley of the New York Times: "President Trump delivered an economic victory lap during a speech to farmers on Monday in which he vastly overstated the size of the tax cuts passed by Congress late last year and played up a rollback of regulations on American businesses. Declaring that the 'American dream is roaring back to life,' Mr. Trump -- who has made clear that he likes big numbers -- claimed that the tax overhaul cut taxes by $5.5 trillion when, in fact, the legislation will reduce the overall tax burden on individuals and companies over the next decade by $1.5 trillion.... Mr. Trump apparently chose to highlight just one side of the ledger -- the total amount of tax reductions in the bill that he signed in December -- without counting the amount of taxes that were increased in the same legislation to help pay for the bill.... To applause from thousands of farmers in the audience, Mr. Trump said the tax cut would exempt most family farms from the estate tax.... In reality, only about 80 small businesses and farms would fall under the estate-tax tent this year.... The new law, which exempts more estates from the tax, will primarily benefit the richest Americans." ...
... Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post: "According to Trump, the rising market is evidence of how awesome his presidency has been for the U.S. economy. At one point, he even touted a confused (i.e., wrong) claim that equity market increases were tantamount to wiping out our national debt.... Stock markets don't reflect the underlying health of the economy. Or the financial security of the middle class. Or any other broader measure of social welfare, for that matter.... Markets can also fall, making it super risky to tie your administration's success to stock prices. Stock prices have been rising fairly consistently since March 2009, meaning we're already in the second-longest bull market on record.... if the media were to judge presidents by stock performance, Obama would actually look better than Trump." ...
Jen Kirby of Vox: "A mix of cheers and boos roared through Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia, as ... Donald Trump took the field before the College Football Playoff National Championship between the University of Alabama and University of Georgia on Monday night.... College players traditionally stay inside the locker rooms until after the National Anthem, so the ... two teams vying for the championship weren't on the field during Trump's appearance." ...
... Jacqueline Thomsen of the Hill: "An Alabama football player yelled 'f[uck] Trump' as he took the field at the College Football Playoff national championship on Monday, which was attended by President Trump. Alabama running back Bo Scarbrough yelled the expletive as the team walked onto the field for the game, according to a clip shared by Sporting News." ...
... Who Said "Fuck Trump"? John Talty of AL.com: "Alabama running back Bo Scarbrough denied yelling 'F[uck] Trump' before Monday night's College Football Playoff National Championship Game. Sporting News posted a video clip on its Twitter account that quickly gained steam showing someone yelling "F[uck] Trump" as the Alabama players walked through the halls of Mercedes-Benz Stadium to the field. Sporting News identified Scarbrough as the Alabama player who said it...." Mrs. McC: In the Sporting News video, Scarbrough is out of frame at the moment someone says "Fuck Trump," & I couldn't see anyone in-frame moving his lips in sync with "Fuck Trump."
Andrew Marantz of the New Yorker on the Trump-"Fox & Friends" feedback loop. A teevee show ostensibly about the news is romancing the Trump. It's pretty sickening.
"The Worst & the Dumbest." Paul Krugman: "This great nation has often been led by mediocre men, some of whom had unpleasant personalities. But they generally haven't done too much damage, for two reasons. First, second-rate presidents have often been surrounded by first-rate public servants.... Second, our system of checks and balances has restrained presidents who might otherwise have been tempted to ignore the rule of law or abuse their position.... When the V.S.G. [Very Stable Genius] moved into the White House, he brought with him an extraordinary collection of subordinates -- and I mean that in the worst way.... While unqualified people are marching in, qualified people are fleeing.... Meanwhile..., leading Republicans in Congress are increasingly determined to participate in obstruction of justice." ...
... AND Yet. And Yet. Mrs. McCrabbie: I find myself agreeing, in general & in a number of specifics (tho not all), with David Brooks today.
Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post: "Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has raised the likelihood with President Trump's legal team that his office will seek an interview with the president, triggering a discussion among his attorneys about how to avoid a sit-down encounter or set limits on such a session, according to two people familiar with the talks. Mueller brought up the issue of interviewing Trump during a late December meeting with the president's lawyers, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. Mueller deputy James Quarles, who oversees the White House portion of the special counsel investigation, also attended. The special counsel's team could interview Trump very soon on some limited portion of questions -- possibly within the next several weeks, according to a person close to the president who was granted anonymity to describe internal conversations." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Matt Apuzzo & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "... Robert S. Mueller III told President Trump's lawyers last month that he will probably seek to interview the president, setting off discussions among Mr. Trump's lawyers about the perils of such a move.... White House officials viewed the discussion as a sign that Mr. Mueller's investigation of Mr. Trump could be nearing the end. But even if that is so, allowing prosecutors to interview a sitting president who has a history of hyperbolic or baseless assertions carries legal risk for him.... One person familiar with the discussions said Mr. Mueller appeared most interested in asking questions about the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, and the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey...." ...
... Investigating the Investigators, Ctd. Kyle Cheney of Politico: "Broadening their political counterattack in defense of the White House..., Donald Trump's allies in Congress are placing new scrutiny on contacts between top Justice Department officials and reporters covering the Trump-Russia investigation.... On Thursday, Republicans demanded more information from the Justice Department officials about a meeting Andrew Weissman, a career federal prosecutor now on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigative team, held with reporters last April. In a Jan. 4 op-ed, [Rep. Mark] Meadows [R-N.C.] and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to be replaced, citing in part an 'alarming number of FBI agents and DOJ officials sharing information with reporters.' Last month, House Republicans cast public suspicion on communication they say occurred in the fall of 2016 between former FBI general counsel James Baker and a Mother Jones reporter who wrote stories at the time about the FBI's probe of Trump-Russia ties.... Republicans have offered no evidence of wrongdoing.... Democrats call the focus on reporter contacts the latest front in a wide-ranging campaign by some GOP lawmakers to discredit the Russia probe.... They also warn that Republicans are seeking to intimidate government officials and chill investigative reporting." ...
... John Solomon of the Hill: "Republican-led House and Senate committees are investigating whether leaders of the Russia counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the news media that resulted in improper leaks, prompted in part by text messages amongst senior FBI officials mentioning specific reporters, news organizations and articles. In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues." ...
... Betsy Woodruff & Spencer Ackerman of the Daily Beast: "In recent months, congressional negotiators have been working on a bill codifying an umbrella of mass-surveillance activities known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The authorization for those activities is due to expire in a matter of days. But [House Intelligence] Chairman Devin Nunes [R-Trumpsylvania] threw a monkey wrench into the process, by initially pushing to include in the bill an unrelated a provision on so-called unmasking, the process that intelligence agencies use to reveal the names of U.S. persons who may be involved in crimes like spying.... Nunes' effort played a role -- though a minor one -- in slowing down negotiations.... Nunes was ultimately forced to strip the provision.... What distinguished it, multiple Hill and intelligence sources told The Daily Beast, was that it was the only unforced error in the process -- the result of Nunes' effort to resurrect a controversy members of his own party have dismissed. Reauthorizing the program is the top legislative priority of the Justice Department...."
Jonathan Martin of the New York Times reviews Fire & Fury. ...
... ** See, at the top of today's thread, Elizabeth's commentary on fact-checking, vis-à-vis Fire & Fury. Essential reading.
... Oops! Matt Shuham of TPM: "Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka wrote Monday that he had been told to participate in Michael Wolff's blockbuster book, 'Fire and Fury.'... In an op-ed in the Hill, he wrote..., '[W]hen I met Michael Wolff in Reince Priebus' office, where he was waiting to talk to Steve Bannon, and after I had been told to also speak to him for his book, my attitude was polite but firm: "Thanks but no thanks."'..." Gorka wrote." ...
... Addy Baird of ThinkProgress: "Gorka -- in an effort to stand by his man — has confirmed that Wolff did indeed have access to the White House and that staffers were asked to speak with him for the book. After Mediaite ran a piece about Gorka's accidental admission, Gorka responded on Twitter, saying that the '[r]equest to please @MichaelWolffNYC the hack came from outsite @WhiteHouse....'" ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: These people are not too bright. Besides the gaffe, the guy can't spell: "outsite @WhiteHouse?" (Normally, I would not pick on someone who learned English as a second language, which Gorka likely did -- his parents were Hungarians & he did post-grad work in Budapest. But he was born in London, went to school & university there & lived there until he was 22. He should have learned to spell "outside.") ...
... These People Were Not "Outsite @WhiteHouse." Olivia Beavers of the Hill: "Michael Wolff ...said Monday both current and former top White House officials encouraged other aides 'to cooperate' in interviews for the book. 'Everybody was told to speak to me,' Wolff said in an ... interview ... on CNN's 'Tonight with Don Lemon.' '[Stephen] Bannon told people to cooperate, Sean Spicer told people to cooperate, Kellyanne Conway told people to cooperate, Hope Hicks,' he said respectively about the president's former chief strategist, former press secretary, senior adviser and current communications director."
Miriam Jordan of the New York Times on the Trump administration's latest deportation extravaganza: this time, 200,000 Salvadorans who have enjoyed temporary protection status for more than a decade. Mrs. McC: once again, this isn't just cruel; it's stupid. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Vivian Yee, et al., of the New York Times: "... immigrants from Haiti and Central America ... have staked their livelihoods on the temporary permission they received years ago from the government to live and work in the United States. Hundreds of thousands now stand to lose that status under the Trump administration, which said on Monday that roughly 200,000 immigrants from El Salvador would have to leave by September 2019 or face deportation. Even if they remain here illegally, they, like the young immigrants known as Dreamers whose status is also in jeopardy this winter, will lose their work permits, potentially scratching more than a million people from the legal work force in a matter of months. And the American companies that employ them will be forced to look elsewhere for labor, if they can get it at all.... [A] report, by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, estimates that stripping the protections from Salvadorans, Hondurans and Haitians would deprive Social Security and Medicare of about $6.9 billion in contributions over a decade, and would shrink the gross domestic product by $45.2 billion." ...
... John Cassidy of the New Yorker: "These days, it's almost as if there are two Donald Trump Presidencies. One is a circus performed daily on Twitter and cable news. The other Presidency, which has to do with policy formulation and implementation, receives less attention, but it is more consequential because it is hurting the welfare of millions of people.... While the President lolls about the White House watching Fox News, the Administration he heads is busy trying to implement the agenda he has championed.... One notable area where they are seeing success is the targeting of legal immigrants. Yes, legal.... Even though Trump himself appears to spend much of his time goofing off and spouting off, his minions are far more diligent in targeting some of the most marginalized and defenseless members of society. Amid all the craziness, that should never be overlooked."
... Billions for Bupkis. Ron Nixon of the New York Times: "The Trump administration would cut or delay funding for border surveillance, radar technology, patrol boats and customs agents in its upcoming spending plan to curb illegal immigration -- all proven security measures that officials and experts have said are more effective than building a wall along the Mexican border. President Trump has made the border wall a focus of his campaign against illegal immigration.... Under spending plans submitted last week to Congress, the wall would cost $18 billion over the next 10 years, and be erected along nearly 900 miles of the southern border. The wall also has become a bargaining chip in negotiations with Congress as lawmakers seek to prevent nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants from being deported. But security experts said the president's focus on a border wall ignores the constantly evolving nature of terrorism, immigration and drug trafficking."
Steven Mufson of the Washington Post: "The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power plants struggling in competitive electricity markets. The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding.... [Perry's] plan ... was widely seen as an effort to alter the balance of competitive electricity markets that federal regulators have been cultivating since the late 1980s. Critics said it would have largely helped a handful of coal and nuclear companies, including the utility FirstEnergy and coal-mining firm Murray Energy, while raising rates for consumers."
And Another One Bites the Dust. Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post: "House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce said Monday he will not seek reelection this year, adding his name to a growing list of senior Republican lawmakers who have chosen to retire in what is shaping up to be a difficult election year for the GOP. Royce (R-Calif.), first elected in 1992, is one of eight House Republican chairmen who have announced they will forego a reelection campaign for the House ahead of the midterm elections. Like most of the others, he would have lost his gavel in the next Congress in accordance with party rules that place a three-term limit on a chairman's service."
Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court on Monday gave a black death row inmate in Georgia a chance to challenge his death sentence because a white juror in his case later used a racial epithet in an affidavit and questioned whether black people have souls. The justices stayed the execution last fall of Keith Leroy Tharpe, who was sentenced to death in 1991 for the murder of his sister-in-law, Jaquelin Freeman. He shot and killed Freeman and left her body in a ditch while kidnapping and later raping his estranged wife." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Pete Williams of NBC News: "The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over a Mississippi law that allows state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections. Signed into law in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, it allows county clerks to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and protects businesses from lawsuits if they refuse to serve LGBT customers. The law was immediately challenged. But lower courts, without ruling on the merits of the law, said those suing could not show that they would be harmed by it. A new round of challenges is expected from residents who have been denied service, and the issue could come back to the Supreme Court's doorstep." See also Akhilleus's commentary in yesterday's thread. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Seems as if the Supremes may have declined to take the case because the law's challengers were deemed to have failed the "standing" test. That doesn't mean the underlying case doesn't have merit; it just means the challengers are going to have to find more convincing victims. That should be pretty easy. I'd guess there are already a number of Mississippi couples who were denied marriage licenses or were refused services because their names were John & Joe or Emily & Heather. (Also linked yesterday.)
** Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: "I loved Oprah's Golden Globes speech on Sunday. It was mesmerizing, pitch perfect, and gave voice to many lifetimes of frustration and vindication with eloquence and a full authority she has earned. But I found the strange Facebook response of 'Oprah 2020' weirdly discordant and disorienting. Oprah's speech -- in my hearing -- wasn't about why she needs to run for office. It was about why the rest of us need to do so, immediately. The dominant theme I heard was about giving voice to invisible people. It was the arc of the entire speech.... What Winfrey and [President] Obama talk about is the limits of top-down power. It is one of the great sins of this celebrity age that we continue to misread this message as a call to turn anyone who tries to deliver it into our savior. When someone tells you 'I alone can fix it,' you should run screaming for the emergency exits." Mrs. McC: A video of Oprah's speech is in the Infotainment column. I would have put it in the Commentariat, but that would mean it would disappear from the page more quickly. ...
... ** Mehdi Hasan in the Intercept: "Oprah Winfrey for president: have we all gone bonkers?... Is this really what most Americans want or what the United States government needs? Another clueless celebrity in possession of the nuclear codes? Another billionaire mogul who doesn't like paying taxes in charge of the economy? And how would it be anything other than sheer hypocrisy for Democrats to offer an unqualified, inexperienced presidential candidate to the American electorate in 2020, given all that they said about Trump in 2016? Granted..., Oprah would be a far superior, smarter, and more stable president than Trump in every imaginable way. But that, of course, is a low, low bar." Mrs. McC: An excellent argument against an unqualified, liberalish celebrity candidate. ...
... Steve M.: "An Oprah run [for the presidency] validates Donald Trump's political career -- hey, Trump was right, you don't need any experience and you don't need deep knowledge of domestic and foreign-policy issues. I'll change my mind if, come 2019, Oprah can address the issues in a way that transcends bumper-sticker slogans and platitudes.... Apart from that, my biggest problem with Oprah is her fondness for promoting quacks and charlatans -- the author of The Secret, for instance, or Dr. Oz.... If she's the Democratic nominee, I think Trump's team will portray him as a seasoned, deeply knowledgeable political veteran, while condemning her as a neophyte out of her depth.... I suspect she won't run. Celebrities at her level exercise a considerable amount of control over what the public gets to know about them, and you can't maintain that control if you're in politics."
... Also, Colbert's review of Jake Tapper's interview of Stephen Miller is pretty funny.
Beyond the Beltway
Robert Anglin of the Arizona Republic: "Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a militia member will not face a retrial on charges that they led an armed rebellion against federal agents in 2014. A federal judge Monday said the federal prosecutors' conduct was 'outrageous' and 'violated due process rights' of the defendants. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward. She dismissed the charges against the four men 'with prejudice,' meaning they cannot face trial again.... Navarro's decision comes less than a month after she declared a mistrial in case and found that federal prosecutors willfully withheld critical and 'potentially exculpatory' evidence from the defense." Navarro is an Obama appointee.
If you're in danger of imminent arrest & detention, try to look good in your mugshot -- it could pay off. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Way Beyond
Choe Sang-Hun of the New York Times: "North Korea agreed on Tuesday to send athletes to February's Winter Olympics in South Korea, a symbolic breakthrough after months of escalating tensions over the North's rapidly advancing nuclear and missile programs. In talks held at the border village of Panmunjom, North Korean negotiators quickly accepted South Korea's request to send a large delegation to the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, next month, according to South Korean news reports. In addition to the athletes, the North will send a cheering squad and a performance-art troupe. The event will be the first time North Korea has participated in the Winter Games in eight years."