There have been a spate of stories and posts over the last few days that have, quite frankly, driven me up the wall. The basic theme is always the same, that we should overlook the cruelty and undemocratic nature of the Republican party and focus on the idea that Democrats don't have policies that speak to rural voters and that liberal coastal elites need to be less condescending toward the interior of the country. Frankly, I think its a load of claptrap.
I'll start off with the first story that raised my blood pressure, a story I largely agreed with but the writer somehow felt obliged to blame Democrats for things they haven't done at the same time. A New Yorker article by Adam Gopnik focusses on the fact the biggest difference between the US and French elections was the moderate and center-right parties and voters banded together to oppose the far-right xenophobic, nationalist populism of Marine Le Pen and the National Front. Here in the US, on the other hand, the institutional Republican party refused to openly condemn Trump, playing footsie with him to stay in power. There is nothing there to disagree with.
But Gopnik continues, "Yet the challenge remains for the left to avoid falling prey to tribal habits, as the right did. You see this risk in the insistence, surprisingly widespread, that there is no real point in resisting Trump, since the Republicans in Congress are complicit in his program...Trump is almost better than Pence because he is more nakedly unfit for the office...Democracies die when they can no longer distinguish between honest opponents of another ideological kind and toxic enemies who come from far outside all normal values. The Republican Party has functioned, by and large, within the constraints of liberal democracy. There are many obvious exceptions—the issue of the legality of government-sponsored torture, during the George W. Bush Administration, is but one key instance from recent years. But it’s a legitimate reproach to liberals that, by maximizing Bush’s violation of the norms, as substantial as they were, they helped make it difficult to distinguish adequately between the Bushes and the Trumps of the world."
This is just an amazing contortion. First, it is highly disputable that the Republican party has functioned "within the constraints of liberal democracy". I think the party's stated goal of obstructing anything and everything Obama wanted to try and accomplish and the refusal to even give Merrick Garland a hearing are just two of many points that put a lie to Gopnik's thesis. In addition, Gopnik himself notes the multiple exceptions, such as Bush's torture, but then goes on to blame liberals for making too much of it, so much so that Trump became acceptable. This is just total BS. The Republican party alone has been undermining liberal democratic institutions and norms for decades and it alone is responsible for Donald Trump.
Michael Tomasky, in a similar vein, calls out all those liberal coastal elites for being just too damn condescending and driving voters in the middle of the country to essentially vote against their own interests. According to Tomasky, "All of these people in middle America, even the actual liberals, have very different sensibilities than elite liberals who live on the coasts". Gee, who would have known. He notes those "real Americans" go to church, don't live and breathe politics, and are patriotic. Really. As if the large majority of liberal coastal Democrats don't do any of those things at all.
Kevin Drum at least tries to make the important point that the gap between Republicans and Democrats has evolved because of what he calls the great sorting out, the different paths for post-war Americans and their families who went to college and those who did not but made a living in blue-collar jobs that actually paid a living wage.
And Drum also rightly highlights the collapse of unions expanding the gap between parties. But, here again, the logic is incredibly convoluted. Says Drum, "But young liberals in the 60s and 70s broke with the unions over the Vietnam War, and the unions broke with them over their counterculture lifestyle. This turned out to be a disaster for both sides, as Democrats lost votes and workers saw their unions decimated by their newfound allies in the Republican Party". Maybe it's just me, but I would think if my new allies were destroying my ability to make a living wage, I might realign myself with my old allies who were actually trying to protect the institutions that allowed me to make that living wage in the first place. But, according to Drum, that would be condescending, saying, "lefties are implicitly lecturing them all the time. You are bad for eating factory-farmed meat. You are bad for enjoying football. You are bad for owning a gun. You are bad for driving an SUV. You are bad for not speaking the language of microaggressions and patriarchy and cultural appropriation."
Please. Give me a break. Most liberals still eat factory-farmed meat and most still watch an inordinate amount of football. Coastal elites like me who live in or near big cities want to restrict the flow of illegal handguns that fuel deadly drug wars, turn smaller crimes into homicides, and increase the chances of accident and suicide. We could care less about the guns people use to actually go hunt. There were around 66 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton and I think it is safe to say that less than 1% of those voters actually think any of the things that Drum mentions.
Finally, I will go to Martin Longman, another person I largely agree with most of the time. His post about Montana rightly points out the problem that Democrats are having in rural America. His focus is on Garfield County, where the Republican assaulter Greg Gianforte got over 90% of the vote, winning by over 600 votes in one of the most sparsely populated counties in the country. Juxtapose that with the more competitive Hill County which Democrat Rob Quist won, but gained only 26 votes. As Longman notes, "Quist would have had to carry 26 Hill Counties to match his losses in Garfield."
According to Longman, "These folks need an actual left-wing alternative and what we’ve been offering them has been driving them away in droves. For a while, it was thought that it wouldn’t matter" because rural losses would be offset by Democratic gains in suburban America. Longman continues, "So, it won’t do to cast all these folks as deplorables and wait from them to die off. It’s simply not true that none of them were ever going to vote for the Democrats no matter what because a lot of them voted for Barack Obama once if not twice. They have problems in their communities and right now the only party offering them something they’re willing to hear is the Republican Party. They need a left-wing alternative that isn’t complacent about their difficulties."
Well, Garfield County also went for Donald Trump by a similar amount to Gianforte. Barack Obama only got as high as 9% in 2008. So these are not voters who voted for Obama. These are not voters that Democrats have lost. They were never there to begin with. In addition, the issue in Garfield County is not the typical issue of the rural poor. Garfield has a median income $10,000 higher than Hill County and the rates of WIC eligibility and poverty are 23% and 8% in Garfield versus 45% and 12% in Hill.
Yes, all of these pundits have some valid points to make. It would be great if Democrats could craft a message that resonated with some of these voters. But Barack Obama couldn't do it, Hillary Clinton couldn't do it, and Rob Quist, a born and bred Montanan who lives and breathes the state, is certainly not condescending to his fellow Montanans, and largely adopted Bernie Sanders' message couldn't do it. And that problem stretches across broad stretches of Republican territory.
But let's be clear. The Republican party is responsible for Donald Trump. The Republican party is responsible for the undercutting of governmental and democratic norms that are shaking our democracy to its core. The Republican party is putting party over country, favoring a quest for power more than a functioning democracy.
As David Atkins, in a piece entitled "There's Only So Much We Can Do" where he discusses Oklahomans cutting their taxes so much that they can no longer provide for adequate police forces and schools can only stay open for four days a week, writes, "These people aren’t just hurting others, and they’re not just punishing minorities or some faraway urban elites. They’re not just trying to bring the low-skill jobs back. At a certain point it starts to take on the trappings of a mass ideological cult, little different from the Maoists of the Great Leap Forward or the widest eyed Jacobins of the French Revolution. Many of them are True Believers who will ride the supply-side, anti-government tiger deep into the jungle of no return even if it means the destruction of their communities and the deaths of their loved ones. In the states where these people hold sway, there’s not much that can even be done to save them. If the people in these communities are willing to destroy themselves for the sake of a warped ideological purity, the rest of us can sometimes only try to shield ourselves from the destruction while welcoming those who wish to escape."
Exactly. Democrats may have things they can do better, but the Republican party, its right wing media echo chamber, and Republicans themselves are the real problem. We should never lose sight of that fact.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Trump's Withdrawal From Paris Agreement Again Puts US On Wrong Side Of History
Reports abound that Trump will pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. The decision will, in many respects, be largely symbolic because the US can not formally withdraw from the agreement until 2019. But it will allow us to join the esteemed company of Syria and Nicaragua in opposing the agreement and once again illustrate Trump's marching America toward a complete abdication of leadership, moral and otherwise, in the world.
To use the phrasing of the deaf, dumb, and blind Republican members of Congress regarding climate change, I am not a scientist. But I don't think the simple fact that Trump has withdrawn from the agreement is particularly catastrophic. It will surely slow down the already slow progress the world is making toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating future global warming.
China and India have already indicated that their efforts will continue regardless of what the United States does. China will reportedly invest $360 billion in renewables over just the next four years. And, as we saw with the solar panel industry, China is only too happy to fill the void when America abdicates its leadership in virtually any field. India, too, has created a blueprint to have nearly 60% of its energy come from renewables within the next ten years. The country has already received commitments of over $22 billion in private investments in renewables and just last week it canceled pre-existing plans to build 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants simply because the price of solar power has plummeted and is now significantly cheaper than coal. And in Europe, which has always been a renewables leader, 90% of new energy production is coming from solar and wind.
Even here is the United States. Trump's decision will not significantly slow the inexorable movement toward renewable energy and cheaper natural gas solutions and the resulting shuttering of coal-fired plants. This is largely based on pure cost analyses but also a result of utilities planning for the future they know is coming.
So, while Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will not change these trends, per se, other actions by the administration certainly would. One example is the report in the NY Times today that the Trump administration is considering removing subsidies for solar and wind power. Currently, government subsidies for wind power come to between $3 billion and $4 billion per year. At times of low energy demand and high production by wind farms, this actually allows the cost of wind energy to fall below zero. The Trump administration is apparently claiming that these subsidies undercut the competition from coal and nuclear power plants. The reality today, however, is that is the cheap cost of natural gas that is largely responsible for the problems in the coal and nuclear energy sector, as opposed to renewables.
The expiration of these subsidies in the past have been devastating for the wind power industry, with new installations falling by over 75% and then picking up again when the subsidies resumed. That may at first blush sound like it would be an unfair subsidy, but it has to be taken in the context of the estimated $20 billion in annual subsidies that go to the US coal, natural gas, and oil industries. Other estimates actually place those subsidies as high as $50 billion.
Rolling back these subsidies for wind and also solar power would actually be a form of protectionism for the ailing coal and nuclear industries. And, more than Trump's Paris decision, it is the decisions and actions that take place in the Energy Department and the EPA that truly would be a setback in attacking global warming. As Paul Krugman keeps on pointing out, the actual costs of really dealing with climate change are much smaller and manageable than most people realize. The fact that Trump is unwilling to bear some of that minimal cost is, to use a word, sad.
Whether or not the Paris Agreement can even do enough to minimize the catastrophic effects of global warming remains to be seen. Certainly the collapsing sea ice in the Arctic, the melting ice sheets in the Antarctic, and the thawing of the tundra is all enough to make one think it is already too late. Whatever effect Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, he has once again placed the United States on the wrong side of history.
To use the phrasing of the deaf, dumb, and blind Republican members of Congress regarding climate change, I am not a scientist. But I don't think the simple fact that Trump has withdrawn from the agreement is particularly catastrophic. It will surely slow down the already slow progress the world is making toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating future global warming.
China and India have already indicated that their efforts will continue regardless of what the United States does. China will reportedly invest $360 billion in renewables over just the next four years. And, as we saw with the solar panel industry, China is only too happy to fill the void when America abdicates its leadership in virtually any field. India, too, has created a blueprint to have nearly 60% of its energy come from renewables within the next ten years. The country has already received commitments of over $22 billion in private investments in renewables and just last week it canceled pre-existing plans to build 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants simply because the price of solar power has plummeted and is now significantly cheaper than coal. And in Europe, which has always been a renewables leader, 90% of new energy production is coming from solar and wind.
Even here is the United States. Trump's decision will not significantly slow the inexorable movement toward renewable energy and cheaper natural gas solutions and the resulting shuttering of coal-fired plants. This is largely based on pure cost analyses but also a result of utilities planning for the future they know is coming.
So, while Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will not change these trends, per se, other actions by the administration certainly would. One example is the report in the NY Times today that the Trump administration is considering removing subsidies for solar and wind power. Currently, government subsidies for wind power come to between $3 billion and $4 billion per year. At times of low energy demand and high production by wind farms, this actually allows the cost of wind energy to fall below zero. The Trump administration is apparently claiming that these subsidies undercut the competition from coal and nuclear power plants. The reality today, however, is that is the cheap cost of natural gas that is largely responsible for the problems in the coal and nuclear energy sector, as opposed to renewables.
The expiration of these subsidies in the past have been devastating for the wind power industry, with new installations falling by over 75% and then picking up again when the subsidies resumed. That may at first blush sound like it would be an unfair subsidy, but it has to be taken in the context of the estimated $20 billion in annual subsidies that go to the US coal, natural gas, and oil industries. Other estimates actually place those subsidies as high as $50 billion.
Rolling back these subsidies for wind and also solar power would actually be a form of protectionism for the ailing coal and nuclear industries. And, more than Trump's Paris decision, it is the decisions and actions that take place in the Energy Department and the EPA that truly would be a setback in attacking global warming. As Paul Krugman keeps on pointing out, the actual costs of really dealing with climate change are much smaller and manageable than most people realize. The fact that Trump is unwilling to bear some of that minimal cost is, to use a word, sad.
Whether or not the Paris Agreement can even do enough to minimize the catastrophic effects of global warming remains to be seen. Certainly the collapsing sea ice in the Arctic, the melting ice sheets in the Antarctic, and the thawing of the tundra is all enough to make one think it is already too late. Whatever effect Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, he has once again placed the United States on the wrong side of history.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Sycophancy In The White House Reaches Totalitarian Levels
North Korea recently put out a statement praising their Dear Leader, Kim Jong-un, saying , "Our Dear Leader has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor . . . and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible."
Oops! That was actually a statement from Presidential spokesperson Hope Hicks, just replace "Our Dear Leader" with "President Trump". I know it's kind of cheap shot to take an administration official's praise of the President out of context but sometimes the level of hyperbole in the Trump administration is downright totalitarian in its sycophancy. And we all know there is a good reason behind that.
Update: Here is a late addition to the leader worship from Sean Spicer's press briefing today: "I want to begin by recapping the incredible, historic trip that the president and first lady have just concluded because it truly was an extraordinary week for America and our people. [...] It was an unprecedented first trip abroad. [...] We've never seen before at this point in a presidency such sweeping reassurance of American interests and the inauguration of a foreign policy strategy designed to bring back the world from growing dangers and perpetual disasters brought on by years of failed leadership. [...] The leaders of more than 50 Arab Muslim nations was a historic turning point that people will be talking about for many years to come. [...] The president's historic speech was met with nearly universal praise. [...] This was a historic event [...] The president then went to Israel where he was received with incredible warmth [...] and gave a highly praised address at the Israel museum [...] This was an extraordinarily successful nine-day trip the president took."
The only thing left out of the last sentence is the phrase, "if you are Vladimir Putin".
Oops! That was actually a statement from Presidential spokesperson Hope Hicks, just replace "Our Dear Leader" with "President Trump". I know it's kind of cheap shot to take an administration official's praise of the President out of context but sometimes the level of hyperbole in the Trump administration is downright totalitarian in its sycophancy. And we all know there is a good reason behind that.
Update: Here is a late addition to the leader worship from Sean Spicer's press briefing today: "I want to begin by recapping the incredible, historic trip that the president and first lady have just concluded because it truly was an extraordinary week for America and our people. [...] It was an unprecedented first trip abroad. [...] We've never seen before at this point in a presidency such sweeping reassurance of American interests and the inauguration of a foreign policy strategy designed to bring back the world from growing dangers and perpetual disasters brought on by years of failed leadership. [...] The leaders of more than 50 Arab Muslim nations was a historic turning point that people will be talking about for many years to come. [...] The president's historic speech was met with nearly universal praise. [...] This was a historic event [...] The president then went to Israel where he was received with incredible warmth [...] and gave a highly praised address at the Israel museum [...] This was an extraordinarily successful nine-day trip the president took."
The only thing left out of the last sentence is the phrase, "if you are Vladimir Putin".
Trump's Support Among His Base Is Slowly But Surely Falling
Donald Trump's foreign trip apparently required him to scale down his tweeting. That, along with the royal treatment by the Saudis, may have been just enough to push his approval ratings up slightly to just above 40% according the HuffPost tracker. And it is true that Trump still retains the overwhelming support of Republicans as over 80% of them still stand behind the President. But there are some signs that Trump's support is beginning to waiver, and it is possible that once they start to fall, they will fall fast and hard.
A Fox News poll out just before the holiday weekend showed that Trump's support among Republicans, which had been close to or over 90% at earlier points in his Presidency, has dropped to just 81%, falling over 5 points in just one month. That is still showing enormous support but the precipitous drop is certainly a real warning sign.
And Nate Silver also points out that the number of people that strongly support Trump in his surveys has fallen by a third and now sits at only just above 20%, a 10 point drop since mid-February. This is doubled by the number that strongly disapprove of Trump, a total that has increased by 10 points since Trump was inaugurated.
There seems to be a sense among Trump's most avid supporters and even among Republicans in Congress that Trump can somehow defy political reality and the polls can be ignored. And you have to admit, he is very good at deflecting attention and simply moving on to the next scandal. But the fact of the matter, the national polls were largely correct in 2016 and it was simply the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College and less than a hundred thousand votes in specific states that allowed Trump to win.
This Republican belief in the ability to ignore polls is also helped by the extreme gerrymandering and voting restrictions that the GOP has managed implement over the last decade and a half. The House member responsible for the 2018 election campaign recently said he felt the House would stay in Republican hands because of gerrymandering (sorry I can't find the link). And a Wisconsin state legislator bragged that their newly implemented voting restrictions would make it harder for Hillary Clinton to win the state in 2016. Some of those restrictions were later struck down by the courts, but there was obviously some truth to his statement.
But it is doubtful that Trump can win again with just 46% of the vote. And it is also doubtful that Republicans can keep on relying on gerrymandering and voting restrictions to maintain their grip on power, especially if Trump' approval remains as bad as it is. And those numbers could get much worse if there is any kind of economic downturn, something that is not beyond the realm of possibility after this long-running recovery, or real solid evidence collusion with the Russians is uncovered, (though I sometimes wonder how much this would even influence Republicans).
As Nate Silver notes, "If you look beneath the surface of Trump’s approval ratings, you find not hidden strength but greater weakness than the topline numbers imply." And that could spell real trouble for Republicans in Congress.
A Fox News poll out just before the holiday weekend showed that Trump's support among Republicans, which had been close to or over 90% at earlier points in his Presidency, has dropped to just 81%, falling over 5 points in just one month. That is still showing enormous support but the precipitous drop is certainly a real warning sign.
And Nate Silver also points out that the number of people that strongly support Trump in his surveys has fallen by a third and now sits at only just above 20%, a 10 point drop since mid-February. This is doubled by the number that strongly disapprove of Trump, a total that has increased by 10 points since Trump was inaugurated.
There seems to be a sense among Trump's most avid supporters and even among Republicans in Congress that Trump can somehow defy political reality and the polls can be ignored. And you have to admit, he is very good at deflecting attention and simply moving on to the next scandal. But the fact of the matter, the national polls were largely correct in 2016 and it was simply the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College and less than a hundred thousand votes in specific states that allowed Trump to win.
This Republican belief in the ability to ignore polls is also helped by the extreme gerrymandering and voting restrictions that the GOP has managed implement over the last decade and a half. The House member responsible for the 2018 election campaign recently said he felt the House would stay in Republican hands because of gerrymandering (sorry I can't find the link). And a Wisconsin state legislator bragged that their newly implemented voting restrictions would make it harder for Hillary Clinton to win the state in 2016. Some of those restrictions were later struck down by the courts, but there was obviously some truth to his statement.
But it is doubtful that Trump can win again with just 46% of the vote. And it is also doubtful that Republicans can keep on relying on gerrymandering and voting restrictions to maintain their grip on power, especially if Trump' approval remains as bad as it is. And those numbers could get much worse if there is any kind of economic downturn, something that is not beyond the realm of possibility after this long-running recovery, or real solid evidence collusion with the Russians is uncovered, (though I sometimes wonder how much this would even influence Republicans).
As Nate Silver notes, "If you look beneath the surface of Trump’s approval ratings, you find not hidden strength but greater weakness than the topline numbers imply." And that could spell real trouble for Republicans in Congress.
Monday, May 29, 2017
It's Not Just Trump But The Republican Party That May Be Totally Corrupted By The Russians
At this point, you really have to wonder how much money and support the Republican party is getting from Vladimir Putin and the Russians these days. We already know that the Russians helped elect down-ballot Republicans in the last election, in addition to Donald Trump. And while I have no proof that the party itself is being funded by Putin, that pretty much seems the only likely explanation for Republican reactions to Trump's disastrous meetings with the Europeans and the revelations about Jared Kushner.
Let's start with Kushner. Virtually every one of his actions is consistent with espionage or some other criminal behavior. He has lied on his security clearance about his contacts with the Russians, something that comes with a five year prison term. He was in charge of microtargeting data for the Trump campaign and the Russian hacking of the elections was similarly microtargeted. He attempts to set up a secret communication channel with the Russians using secure Russian communications in order to avoid scrutiny of US intelligence and diplomatic services. And, according to reports, the Russians offered Kushner, Trump, and their associates bank loans in return for the lifting of sanctions.
John McCain at least agreed that "I don’t think it’s standard procedure prior to the inauguration of the President of the United States by someone who is not in an appointed position...I don't like it". Well strong language like that will certainly get Trump's attention. Lindsey Graham says "The whole story line is suspicious." Except, incredibly, his comment was not directed at Kushner but at the fact the Russian ambassador would report these details about Kushner over a communication line to Moscow that he should know the US was monitoring. For Graham, Kushner's lies don't matter because the story is so unbelievable that he simply won't believe it. Yes, these are the Republican "moderates" who are going to save us from Trump.
Or let's take a look at two of the guys who are supposed to protect this nation. H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser, said "I would not be concerned about it." And John Kelly, the head of Homeland Security, said, "I don’t see any big issue here relative to Jared". And then he offered the classic privileged defense of the rich white man, saying, "I know Jared. He’s a great guy, decent guy. His number one interest, really, is the nation." Well I feel so much safer after a thorough investigation like that. Perhaps Kelly could take the same attitude with some poorer, non-white American citizens his agency continually tries to deport.
It really is amazing that these are the same people who told us that Hillary Clinton's mishandling of a handful of post-classified emails was the greatest security breach in the history of the country.
And then there is the supposedly well-respected head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker. Trump pointedly did not reaffirm Article V of the NATO treaty that calls an attack on one an attack on all. It has only been implemented once in history and that was to come to America's defense after the September 11 attacks. In addition, he never attacked Russian aggression in Ukraine or interference in US and European domestic politics, instead railing about the total fiction of how much money the NATO allies owe the United States. Lastly, Trump refused to sign on to the joint statement supporting the Paris Climate Agreement. The meetings prompted French President Macron to compare Trump to autocrats Putin and Erdogan and for German Chancellor Merkel to bluntly state, "the times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out...we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands", essentially saying that US and, additionally, the UK could no longer be reliable allies. In addition, Merkel's challenger in the upcoming elections made it clear that he and Germany were appalled at Trump' treatment of the Germans during the meetings and that for him and his party, as opposed to US Republicans, politics stops at the border. Martin Schulz said, "In this situation, let me be entirely clear: the Chancellor represents all of us [Germans] at summits like this. And I reject with outrage the way this man [Trump] takes it upon himself to treat the head of our country's government. That is unacceptable."
If that wasn't bad enough, listen to what an experienced US State Department official had to say, obviously off the record in order to keep his job, "When it comes to diplomacy, President Trump is a drunk tourist...Loud and tacky, shoving his way around the dance floor. He steps on others without realising it. It’s ineffectual."
Bob Corker, however, had a much different reaction. Here is the initial portion his entire statement: "I spoke with President Trump at length this morning and told him that I could not be more pleased with his first international trip. The trip was executed to near perfection and it appears the president has made great progress on the broad range of objectives his team articulated to me when I met with senior White House and State Department officials during their preparations. President Trump should be commended on the success of this trip, and I look forward to continuing our work together to address numbers of important issues. The challenges we face around the world are vast, but with a strategic focus on our long-term goals, I am confident we can reassert U.S. leadership, strengthen key alliance and improve security both at home and abroad."
So Corker thinks that the French comparing Trump to Putin, Trump's refusal to positively affirm Article V, and the Germans' conclusion that the US can no longer be a reliable partner, is a "success". Only to Vladimir Putin and the Russians who are closer to breaking up the Western Alliance than they have ever been since 1945.
Please don't tell me the Republicans are sticking with Trump because they are still hoping to repeal Obamacare and pass tax cuts for the rich. They would get those far more easily under President Mike Pence. There is really only one conclusion you can draw, and that is the Republican party itself has been corrupted to the core by the Russians. There may be no direct evidence of it right now, but it is the only story that fits with the circumstantial evidence available.
Let's start with Kushner. Virtually every one of his actions is consistent with espionage or some other criminal behavior. He has lied on his security clearance about his contacts with the Russians, something that comes with a five year prison term. He was in charge of microtargeting data for the Trump campaign and the Russian hacking of the elections was similarly microtargeted. He attempts to set up a secret communication channel with the Russians using secure Russian communications in order to avoid scrutiny of US intelligence and diplomatic services. And, according to reports, the Russians offered Kushner, Trump, and their associates bank loans in return for the lifting of sanctions.
John McCain at least agreed that "I don’t think it’s standard procedure prior to the inauguration of the President of the United States by someone who is not in an appointed position...I don't like it". Well strong language like that will certainly get Trump's attention. Lindsey Graham says "The whole story line is suspicious." Except, incredibly, his comment was not directed at Kushner but at the fact the Russian ambassador would report these details about Kushner over a communication line to Moscow that he should know the US was monitoring. For Graham, Kushner's lies don't matter because the story is so unbelievable that he simply won't believe it. Yes, these are the Republican "moderates" who are going to save us from Trump.
Or let's take a look at two of the guys who are supposed to protect this nation. H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser, said "I would not be concerned about it." And John Kelly, the head of Homeland Security, said, "I don’t see any big issue here relative to Jared". And then he offered the classic privileged defense of the rich white man, saying, "I know Jared. He’s a great guy, decent guy. His number one interest, really, is the nation." Well I feel so much safer after a thorough investigation like that. Perhaps Kelly could take the same attitude with some poorer, non-white American citizens his agency continually tries to deport.
It really is amazing that these are the same people who told us that Hillary Clinton's mishandling of a handful of post-classified emails was the greatest security breach in the history of the country.
And then there is the supposedly well-respected head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker. Trump pointedly did not reaffirm Article V of the NATO treaty that calls an attack on one an attack on all. It has only been implemented once in history and that was to come to America's defense after the September 11 attacks. In addition, he never attacked Russian aggression in Ukraine or interference in US and European domestic politics, instead railing about the total fiction of how much money the NATO allies owe the United States. Lastly, Trump refused to sign on to the joint statement supporting the Paris Climate Agreement. The meetings prompted French President Macron to compare Trump to autocrats Putin and Erdogan and for German Chancellor Merkel to bluntly state, "the times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out...we Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands", essentially saying that US and, additionally, the UK could no longer be reliable allies. In addition, Merkel's challenger in the upcoming elections made it clear that he and Germany were appalled at Trump' treatment of the Germans during the meetings and that for him and his party, as opposed to US Republicans, politics stops at the border. Martin Schulz said, "In this situation, let me be entirely clear: the Chancellor represents all of us [Germans] at summits like this. And I reject with outrage the way this man [Trump] takes it upon himself to treat the head of our country's government. That is unacceptable."
If that wasn't bad enough, listen to what an experienced US State Department official had to say, obviously off the record in order to keep his job, "When it comes to diplomacy, President Trump is a drunk tourist...Loud and tacky, shoving his way around the dance floor. He steps on others without realising it. It’s ineffectual."
Bob Corker, however, had a much different reaction. Here is the initial portion his entire statement: "I spoke with President Trump at length this morning and told him that I could not be more pleased with his first international trip. The trip was executed to near perfection and it appears the president has made great progress on the broad range of objectives his team articulated to me when I met with senior White House and State Department officials during their preparations. President Trump should be commended on the success of this trip, and I look forward to continuing our work together to address numbers of important issues. The challenges we face around the world are vast, but with a strategic focus on our long-term goals, I am confident we can reassert U.S. leadership, strengthen key alliance and improve security both at home and abroad."
So Corker thinks that the French comparing Trump to Putin, Trump's refusal to positively affirm Article V, and the Germans' conclusion that the US can no longer be a reliable partner, is a "success". Only to Vladimir Putin and the Russians who are closer to breaking up the Western Alliance than they have ever been since 1945.
Please don't tell me the Republicans are sticking with Trump because they are still hoping to repeal Obamacare and pass tax cuts for the rich. They would get those far more easily under President Mike Pence. There is really only one conclusion you can draw, and that is the Republican party itself has been corrupted to the core by the Russians. There may be no direct evidence of it right now, but it is the only story that fits with the circumstantial evidence available.
Stanley Cup Preview And Predictions
The Stanley Cup Finals begin tonight as the Pittsburgh Penguins face the Nashville Predators. The Penguins are trying to become the first repeat winners since the salary cap was instituted by the NHL. The Predators are looking for the first championship ever.
This shapes up to be a great series. Pittsburgh has had the most potent offense in these playoffs and Nashville has been the best defensive team. The Penguins were extended to a second overtime in Game 7 in the last round against the Ottawa Senators. The Predators are pretty much the same team as the Senators, with probably a deeper and stronger defense but slightly less offensive firepower, especially with top centermen Ryan Johansen out for the series and Mike Fisher hoping to be ready after an injury against the Anaheim Ducks in the prior series. But whatever the Predator forwards have lacked has been more than compensated by the scoring provided by the Nashville defense.
Pittsburgh has its own share of injuries, primarily on defense. Their best defenseman, Kris Letang, has missed the entire playoffs and the Pens have lost a number of others on defense because of injury as the playoffs have progressed. But the Pens just throw some guys on in their place who simply get the job done. Pittsburgh will get its offensive pest and goalmouth presence, Patric Hornqvist, back for this series which will just make Sydney Crosby and Evgeny Malkin even more dangerous than ever. It will be up to Nashville's solid defense led by Roman Josi and P.K. Subban to keep them in check.
In the playoffs, goaltending can be everything. But there is really nothing to choose from with the two goaltenders in this series. Pekka Rinne has probably been the Predators MVP, if not the entire playoff MVP, up until this point. His spectacular goaltending has stolen more than one game for Nashville and he really has just had one bad game the entire playoff run. Marc Andre Fleury provided great, but erratic, goaltending early on in the playoffs until starter Matt Murray could get healthy again. Murray has just been consistently good since his return, posting nearly a .946 save percentage, compared with Rinne's equally spectacular .941. Perhaps the only advantage here belongs to Rinne because of his phenomenal puck handling skills. In the prior series, the Ducks simply could not keep their dump-ins away from Rinne, who often made it easy for the Predator defense to avoid the forecheck and set up the break out.
Prediction: In the end, you have to score goals to actually win and, in that regard, the Pens have the advantage. They will only have to go to one overtime in Game 7. Pittsburgh in 7.
This shapes up to be a great series. Pittsburgh has had the most potent offense in these playoffs and Nashville has been the best defensive team. The Penguins were extended to a second overtime in Game 7 in the last round against the Ottawa Senators. The Predators are pretty much the same team as the Senators, with probably a deeper and stronger defense but slightly less offensive firepower, especially with top centermen Ryan Johansen out for the series and Mike Fisher hoping to be ready after an injury against the Anaheim Ducks in the prior series. But whatever the Predator forwards have lacked has been more than compensated by the scoring provided by the Nashville defense.
Pittsburgh has its own share of injuries, primarily on defense. Their best defenseman, Kris Letang, has missed the entire playoffs and the Pens have lost a number of others on defense because of injury as the playoffs have progressed. But the Pens just throw some guys on in their place who simply get the job done. Pittsburgh will get its offensive pest and goalmouth presence, Patric Hornqvist, back for this series which will just make Sydney Crosby and Evgeny Malkin even more dangerous than ever. It will be up to Nashville's solid defense led by Roman Josi and P.K. Subban to keep them in check.
In the playoffs, goaltending can be everything. But there is really nothing to choose from with the two goaltenders in this series. Pekka Rinne has probably been the Predators MVP, if not the entire playoff MVP, up until this point. His spectacular goaltending has stolen more than one game for Nashville and he really has just had one bad game the entire playoff run. Marc Andre Fleury provided great, but erratic, goaltending early on in the playoffs until starter Matt Murray could get healthy again. Murray has just been consistently good since his return, posting nearly a .946 save percentage, compared with Rinne's equally spectacular .941. Perhaps the only advantage here belongs to Rinne because of his phenomenal puck handling skills. In the prior series, the Ducks simply could not keep their dump-ins away from Rinne, who often made it easy for the Predator defense to avoid the forecheck and set up the break out.
Prediction: In the end, you have to score goals to actually win and, in that regard, the Pens have the advantage. They will only have to go to one overtime in Game 7. Pittsburgh in 7.
Memorial Day
Today is Memorial Day here in the US, where we honor and remember all those who have died fighting for this country. As opposed to Remembrance Day in Europe and Canada which was created in response to the horrific human cost of World War I, Memorial Day here in the US actually originated as a holiday remembering all those, Union and Confederate, who died in the Civil War.
There is probably no one alive today in this country who knew someone who made the ultimate sacrifice in World War I, but there are many who still live today who knew those who died in World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam and Southeast Asia, Beirut, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and many other engagements too numerous to mention. In remembering and honoring those brave men and women today, we might also reflect on the failure of humanity that made their sacrifice necessary and how we can perhaps do better today and in the future.
My father was lucky enough to survive World War II, and it really was just pure luck that he did so. But, as a child, when I asked him about his war experiences, he always replied with virtually the same answer, "The only thing you ever need to know about war is that is an enormous waste of resources and people". It's a lesson we never seem to really learn.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
GOP Gives The Pink Slip To The Blue Slip As Another Governing Norm Gets Swept Away
About ten days ago, I wrote that it looked like Mitch McConnell and the Republicans were planning to eliminate the practice of blue slips that they used repeatedly to keep President Obama from getting his appointments on to the federal bench. The blue slip process allowed a Senator from a state covered by the federal judicial district the nominee will serve on to essentially veto that choice.
Republicans constantly and repeatedly used the blue slip process to keep Obama's appointments from even being considered. Marco Rubio once proposed a nominee that Obama eventually selected and then Rubio proceeded to use the blue slip process to put a hold that very nominee. But perhaps the greatest abuse of the process came from North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis who abused the blue slip process to keep a seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina open for over a decade. In another case, a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has remained open for the last 5 years.
All told, 17 federal judicial appointees never received a hearing because of the Republicans abuse of the blue slip process. And that actually understates the problem because Obama gave up even nominating appointees for districts covering states represented by two Republican Senators because he knew that they would be blue-slipped and it would be a waste of time. And we haven't even mentioned Merrick Garland.
Now, having abused the process for the Obama years, Republicans are planning to scrap the process in order to pack the federal bench with their Federalist Society extremists. In fact, Trump's first judicial nominee is for the 6th Circuit covering Kentucky. That seat has remained vacant since 2013 because Mitch McConnell blue-slipped Obama's nominee.
As Senator Feinstein rightly notes, "Eliminating the blue slip is essentially a move to end cooperation between the executive and legislative branch on judicial nominees, allowing nominees to be hand-picked by right-wing groups."
So, yet another governing norm is cast aside in order for the Republican party to grab more governmental power. Now some, like Erik Loomis, argue that getting rid of the blue slip process will be better in the long run because it will allow Democrats to actually get their nominees confirmed when they once again control the presidency and the Senate.
But I think that largely misses the point. There was a reason the blue slip process was implemented, just like there was a good reason for the filibuster in the Senate. These processes mitigate the tyranny of the majority, which is especially important in the Senate, because that is exactly how the House works. It encourages bipartisan solutions and creates a certain constancy in governance, so that policies have some sort of continuity and don't swing from one extreme to another.
In the judicial sphere, eliminating the blue slip will create a situation where you have districts with almost totally opposing judicial philosophies. This has three, largely negative, implications. First, it will encourage the appointment of younger, inexperienced, and more ideological nominees. That will not be good for enhancing the acceptance of the rule of law. We already see many on the right talking about simply ignoring judicial rulings.
Second, opponents of specific governmental policies will go venue shopping, bringing cases in districts where they know the judicial philosophy largely hews to the result they are looking for. We have already seen this happen with Obama's overtime rule where opponents filed in the Eastern District of Texas because they not only knew the judges on that Court would be sympathetic to their view but would also give them a quick decision.
The consequence of venue shopping will mean more conflicts between district rulings, meaning even more cases that need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. And the Court's docket will not be able to keep up with the conflicts that arise. Meaning that justice will continue to be denied for longer periods of time and policies will remain in limbo for equally extended periods. We see this in all the recent gerrymandering cases, which take multiple election cycles to get resolved, leaving voters disenfranchised in election after election. Certain voters in North Carolina have voted in illegally gerrymandered districts in three of the four elections this decade because of the lack of speed in the judiciary and the lack of a real enforcement tool ever since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.
This is no way to run a country.
If you've read this blog, you will know how I continue to rail about the Republican party's continual attacks on our democratic norms and foundations in the pursuit of raw political power. Abusing and now eliminating the blue slip process is just another step down that road. And, yes, there is some truth to the fact that removing some of these obstacles will allow Democrats to push their agenda through more easily when they get power. But I think it is important to realize what exactly the Republicans have destroyed and what our democracy has lost with that destruction. These governing norms are what David Frum calls the "guardrails of our democracy". The GOP has been removing these guardrails section by section for the last 40 years. And without those guardrails, it becomes far easier to veer off the path of democracy and into autocracy, plutocratic oligarchy, and other dead-ends of governance. And it will take a long time, if ever, to put those guardrails back in place.
Republicans constantly and repeatedly used the blue slip process to keep Obama's appointments from even being considered. Marco Rubio once proposed a nominee that Obama eventually selected and then Rubio proceeded to use the blue slip process to put a hold that very nominee. But perhaps the greatest abuse of the process came from North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis who abused the blue slip process to keep a seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina open for over a decade. In another case, a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has remained open for the last 5 years.
All told, 17 federal judicial appointees never received a hearing because of the Republicans abuse of the blue slip process. And that actually understates the problem because Obama gave up even nominating appointees for districts covering states represented by two Republican Senators because he knew that they would be blue-slipped and it would be a waste of time. And we haven't even mentioned Merrick Garland.
Now, having abused the process for the Obama years, Republicans are planning to scrap the process in order to pack the federal bench with their Federalist Society extremists. In fact, Trump's first judicial nominee is for the 6th Circuit covering Kentucky. That seat has remained vacant since 2013 because Mitch McConnell blue-slipped Obama's nominee.
As Senator Feinstein rightly notes, "Eliminating the blue slip is essentially a move to end cooperation between the executive and legislative branch on judicial nominees, allowing nominees to be hand-picked by right-wing groups."
So, yet another governing norm is cast aside in order for the Republican party to grab more governmental power. Now some, like Erik Loomis, argue that getting rid of the blue slip process will be better in the long run because it will allow Democrats to actually get their nominees confirmed when they once again control the presidency and the Senate.
But I think that largely misses the point. There was a reason the blue slip process was implemented, just like there was a good reason for the filibuster in the Senate. These processes mitigate the tyranny of the majority, which is especially important in the Senate, because that is exactly how the House works. It encourages bipartisan solutions and creates a certain constancy in governance, so that policies have some sort of continuity and don't swing from one extreme to another.
In the judicial sphere, eliminating the blue slip will create a situation where you have districts with almost totally opposing judicial philosophies. This has three, largely negative, implications. First, it will encourage the appointment of younger, inexperienced, and more ideological nominees. That will not be good for enhancing the acceptance of the rule of law. We already see many on the right talking about simply ignoring judicial rulings.
Second, opponents of specific governmental policies will go venue shopping, bringing cases in districts where they know the judicial philosophy largely hews to the result they are looking for. We have already seen this happen with Obama's overtime rule where opponents filed in the Eastern District of Texas because they not only knew the judges on that Court would be sympathetic to their view but would also give them a quick decision.
The consequence of venue shopping will mean more conflicts between district rulings, meaning even more cases that need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. And the Court's docket will not be able to keep up with the conflicts that arise. Meaning that justice will continue to be denied for longer periods of time and policies will remain in limbo for equally extended periods. We see this in all the recent gerrymandering cases, which take multiple election cycles to get resolved, leaving voters disenfranchised in election after election. Certain voters in North Carolina have voted in illegally gerrymandered districts in three of the four elections this decade because of the lack of speed in the judiciary and the lack of a real enforcement tool ever since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.
This is no way to run a country.
If you've read this blog, you will know how I continue to rail about the Republican party's continual attacks on our democratic norms and foundations in the pursuit of raw political power. Abusing and now eliminating the blue slip process is just another step down that road. And, yes, there is some truth to the fact that removing some of these obstacles will allow Democrats to push their agenda through more easily when they get power. But I think it is important to realize what exactly the Republicans have destroyed and what our democracy has lost with that destruction. These governing norms are what David Frum calls the "guardrails of our democracy". The GOP has been removing these guardrails section by section for the last 40 years. And without those guardrails, it becomes far easier to veer off the path of democracy and into autocracy, plutocratic oligarchy, and other dead-ends of governance. And it will take a long time, if ever, to put those guardrails back in place.
The Twisted Logic Of James Comey That Sabotaged The Clinton Campaign
James Comey got some good news on Friday. The stories about Jared Kushner's apparent collusion with the Russians totally overshadowed a CNN story that show just how convoluted Comey's logic had to get in order to sabotage the Hillary Clinton campaign.
I have already written about the report that Comey had apparently been duped by a Russian operation that delivered a Russian intelligence analysis that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had compromised herself by agreeing to limit the investigation into Hillary's emails. That report, along with Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona, prompted Comey to unilaterally decide to ignore DOJ protocols, brazenly assume the duties of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, and hold a press conference characterizing Clinton as "extremely careless" while essentially exonerating her.
That report was later shown to be false but Comey had indicated that he took the report seriously on multiple occasions, including testimony before Congress. That seemed bad enough. But the CNN report shows that the truth is actually worse.
Even before that fateful July press conference, Comey knew that the document was false but that made absolutely no difference to him. His rationale was that it would be assumed to be true if it ever became public and that would tarnish the entire investigation and its conclusions. Of course, if it did become public, the obvious position would be to come out and say that the document was known to be false Russian propaganda. But Comey did not want to have to deny the report because he felt that the denial would reveal the FBI's sources and methods.
So, in order to protect the FBI's sources and methods, Comey ended up, apparently wittingly, in colluding with the Russians in order to discredit Hillary Clinton and influence the election in Donald Trump's favor.
Of course, Comey's actions in July then led directly to his fateful decision to announce there was "new information" regarding Hillary's emails just 11 days before the election, an unprecedented injection of the FBI into an election and a move that most independent analyses believe threw the election to Donald Trump. And Comey used the same twisted logic in that case. Again, he feared that if the information came out about the existence of the Abedin emails, it would taint his investigation. So he went and announced the existence of those emails before he even had any idea of whether they were relevant or not.
In essence, on multiple occasions James Comey spread Russian or Republican propaganda when he either knew it was false or had no good reason to believe was true simply because he didn't want to deal with the consequences of the potential abuse he would take if that propaganda became public sometime later. It takes an incredible twist of logic to do what Comey did. But, in both cases, the result was far worse for Hillary Clinton than it was for James Comey.
I have already written about the report that Comey had apparently been duped by a Russian operation that delivered a Russian intelligence analysis that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had compromised herself by agreeing to limit the investigation into Hillary's emails. That report, along with Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona, prompted Comey to unilaterally decide to ignore DOJ protocols, brazenly assume the duties of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, and hold a press conference characterizing Clinton as "extremely careless" while essentially exonerating her.
That report was later shown to be false but Comey had indicated that he took the report seriously on multiple occasions, including testimony before Congress. That seemed bad enough. But the CNN report shows that the truth is actually worse.
Even before that fateful July press conference, Comey knew that the document was false but that made absolutely no difference to him. His rationale was that it would be assumed to be true if it ever became public and that would tarnish the entire investigation and its conclusions. Of course, if it did become public, the obvious position would be to come out and say that the document was known to be false Russian propaganda. But Comey did not want to have to deny the report because he felt that the denial would reveal the FBI's sources and methods.
So, in order to protect the FBI's sources and methods, Comey ended up, apparently wittingly, in colluding with the Russians in order to discredit Hillary Clinton and influence the election in Donald Trump's favor.
Of course, Comey's actions in July then led directly to his fateful decision to announce there was "new information" regarding Hillary's emails just 11 days before the election, an unprecedented injection of the FBI into an election and a move that most independent analyses believe threw the election to Donald Trump. And Comey used the same twisted logic in that case. Again, he feared that if the information came out about the existence of the Abedin emails, it would taint his investigation. So he went and announced the existence of those emails before he even had any idea of whether they were relevant or not.
In essence, on multiple occasions James Comey spread Russian or Republican propaganda when he either knew it was false or had no good reason to believe was true simply because he didn't want to deal with the consequences of the potential abuse he would take if that propaganda became public sometime later. It takes an incredible twist of logic to do what Comey did. But, in both cases, the result was far worse for Hillary Clinton than it was for James Comey.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
French Open Predictions
The French Open begins tomorrow as the players take to the red clay of Roland Garros to contest the second Grand Slam of the year. There are two distinctly different takes on this tournament, depending on whether you are talking about the men's or women's draw.
On the men's side, most people are saying they should just hand the trophy to Rafa Nadal tomorrow and make the rest of the matches over the next two weeks exhibitions. Nadal has been virtually unbeatable on the clay leading up to this tournament and there is every reason to expect him to walk away with his incredible tenth French Open title. Rafa himself is probably the only person standing in the way of the title, either through injury or just a horrible day.
In addition, there are not many guys you can point to that could challenge Nadal. Dominic Thiem has given Rafa his only loss of the clay court season, playing high risk tennis and not allowing Nadal to drive him off the baseline. But Thiem's high energy, high risk game may not allow him to get far enough to meet Nadal. The other threat is Stan Wawrinka who won this tournament in 2015. Stan has not had a great season but he always manages to lift his game for the majors. Novak Djokovic, last year's winner to complete his career Grand Slam, has basically lost it this year and hiring Agassi as his coach will not be able to fix all that is wrong for Novak. Nick Krygios possibly has the game to threaten Nadal but is fighting injury, the death of his grandfather, and his usual emotional issues. And Andy Murray just can't move well enough on clay to compete.
It's a totally different world on the women's side where, with Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka both out on maternity leave and Maria Sharapova not qualifying because of her drug suspension, it is as wide open as any major tournament in the Open era. What makes this tournament even harder to predict is that many of the women with the best form coming into the event are nursing injuries. And all of them have shown they are beatable on any given day. Last year's number one Angie Kerber has had a dreadful season and last year's defending champion, Garbine Muguruza, has been erratic and is nursing a neck injury. Simona Halep has had a good clay court season but is nursing an ankle injury. Aggie Radwanska has the potential to go deep in this tournament but maybe not enough to get to the finals. Others that deserve mention are the indomitable Dominika Cibulkova, Elina Svitolina who has risen all the way to #6 in the world this year, local hero Kristina Mladenovic, and the ever youthful Svetlana Kuznetsova. Take your pick from any of those and another dozen or so that I haven't even mentioned. It will all make for an exciting and interesting tournament.
Predictions
On the men's side, most people are saying they should just hand the trophy to Rafa Nadal tomorrow and make the rest of the matches over the next two weeks exhibitions. Nadal has been virtually unbeatable on the clay leading up to this tournament and there is every reason to expect him to walk away with his incredible tenth French Open title. Rafa himself is probably the only person standing in the way of the title, either through injury or just a horrible day.
In addition, there are not many guys you can point to that could challenge Nadal. Dominic Thiem has given Rafa his only loss of the clay court season, playing high risk tennis and not allowing Nadal to drive him off the baseline. But Thiem's high energy, high risk game may not allow him to get far enough to meet Nadal. The other threat is Stan Wawrinka who won this tournament in 2015. Stan has not had a great season but he always manages to lift his game for the majors. Novak Djokovic, last year's winner to complete his career Grand Slam, has basically lost it this year and hiring Agassi as his coach will not be able to fix all that is wrong for Novak. Nick Krygios possibly has the game to threaten Nadal but is fighting injury, the death of his grandfather, and his usual emotional issues. And Andy Murray just can't move well enough on clay to compete.
It's a totally different world on the women's side where, with Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka both out on maternity leave and Maria Sharapova not qualifying because of her drug suspension, it is as wide open as any major tournament in the Open era. What makes this tournament even harder to predict is that many of the women with the best form coming into the event are nursing injuries. And all of them have shown they are beatable on any given day. Last year's number one Angie Kerber has had a dreadful season and last year's defending champion, Garbine Muguruza, has been erratic and is nursing a neck injury. Simona Halep has had a good clay court season but is nursing an ankle injury. Aggie Radwanska has the potential to go deep in this tournament but maybe not enough to get to the finals. Others that deserve mention are the indomitable Dominika Cibulkova, Elina Svitolina who has risen all the way to #6 in the world this year, local hero Kristina Mladenovic, and the ever youthful Svetlana Kuznetsova. Take your pick from any of those and another dozen or so that I haven't even mentioned. It will all make for an exciting and interesting tournament.
Predictions
Nadal beats Wawrinka to win his 10th French Open title.
Halep beats Cibulkova; but your guess is as good as mine.
Natural Weekends - Local Birds
When the crabapple tree was in full bloom a few weeks ago, these birds spent hours in there feasting. Perhaps someone can leave a comment telling us their name.
Here is the master (making a sexist assumption based on that classic tuft) of his domain:
The Contours Of Collusion Come Clearer
Another three bombshells landed last night and all three of them were clearly directed at slumlord Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, top adviser, and go-to guy on just about everything. And with these new revelations, the contours of collusion, both before and after the election, become that much clearer and the investigation creeps as close as you can get to President Trump without reaching him directly. Yet.
Earlier in the day, reports surfaced that Trump was thinking not only about a staff shake-up but also about creating a "war room" to fight the burgeoning Russia scandal. The interesting thing about the war room was that it was to be headed by Bannon, Priebus, and Kushner. That seemed like a problem because Priebus has been implicated in the cover-up and Kushner has lied about his own contacts with the Russians. In fact, (and I can't believe I'm actually writing this), the only apparently "clean" one of the three, so far, (and more on that later), is Bannon.
But Kushner's involvement in the war room and even his ability to continue to work in the White House became even more dubious when the first bombshell from the Washington Post landed last night. That story says that, in a secret early December meeting between Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Flynn, and Kushner, Kushner proposed the idea of creating a secret back channel to Moscow, presumably Putin, and to do so by using Russia's secure communications systems either at the Russian Embassy or Consulate. Also discussed was using a third party in a foreign country as a conduit.
US intelligence picked up these details of the meeting when Kislyak reported his shock at Kushner's suggestion about using secure Russian communications when he reported back to Moscow. For Russian security services, having an American come into and use their secure facilities was problematic, to say the least.
In addition, we do know that a third party meeting was eventually set up between the Trump campaign and the Russians in early January, about ten days before Trump officially became President. The Trump transition had the crown prince of Abu Dhabi of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also fly in and meet secretly with them in early December. It had already been agreed that Flynn or Kushner would be too high profile for such a foreign meeting. Instead, it appears that Erik Prince, brother of now Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, met with a representative of Putin in the Seychelles, a meeting set up by the UAE.
The White House, for what its worth, has denied that the discussions in the secret meeting with the crown prince touched on any planning for the meeting in the Seychelles. They claim that the UAE was trying to influence Russian to withdraw its support for Iran, especially its actions in Syria, in return for an easing of US sanctions. Similarly, the New York Times reported last night that the desire to create a secret back channel to the Russians using secure Russian communications was so that Flynn could get a detailed briefing on Syria from Russian intelligence.
Neither of these explanations make any sense. Very simply, all Kushner and Flynn had to do was wait until inauguration and then they were free to talk to the Russians about anything and everything that they envisioned doing. And Flynn would be far more likely to get at least some honest details on Russian Syrian strategy if he could also offer some details on current US deployments and strategies in that country, something he would be totally privy to once Trump was inaugurated. In addition, if their stated reason was true, why did both Flynn and Kushner try to hide the existence of the meeting and the lie about its contents. And why did the White House deny any links to the Seychelles meeting.
The third bomb that dropped was also a direct hit on Kushner. This was a story from Reuters that claimed that Kushner had at least three other unreported contacts with the Russians, both during and after the campaign. Two of those contacts occurred between April and November of last year. These contacts by Kushner are part of the 18 undisclosed contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians that Reuters previously reported on. And as one of the Reuters reporters who wrote the story ominously said on Maddow last night, "these are the undisclosed contacts that we know about", certainly implying their may be others out there.
But here's the real kicker in the Reuters piece: "FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official". In that vein it is worth noting that Kushner also met with the Putin-appointed head of the Russian-owned bank, Vnesheconombank, in early December. That bank is currently under US sanctions. Interesting.
As David Frum points out, Bloomberg has reported that early 2017 was going to be a crucial time for Kushner Companies. The fees at its flagship, but money-losing, property at 666 Fifth Avenue were set to start increasing rapidly in 2017. Those fees continue to escalate until the loans are paid off. In addition, in December of 2017, the interest rate on the outstanding loans will also more than double. This accounts for the Kushners' ethically challenged and ultimately failed attempt to get the Chinese-backed Anbang Insurance to invest in the building and why the Kushner Companies are traveling around China trying to basically sell access to Trump in order to also round up investors for the building. In a declining, NYC real estate market, the Kushner Companies existence could very well be threatened.
The final bombshell, but actually the second one of the evening, and this one less directed at Jared Kushner directly and more at the Trump campaign in general, was the report that the Senate Intelligence Committee is requesting the Trump campaign produce all documents, emails, and phone record that are Russia-related going back to June 2015. As the Trump campaign has repeatedly said they had no interaction with the Russians, this shouldn't be hard to do. On the other hand, we know that claim is false and it will be interesting to see the volume of material that this request brings to the surface. But this is certainly a clear indication that the Trump campaign is now coming under serious scrutiny.
Jared Kushner is now in serious legal trouble. He has lied about his repeated contacts with the Russians on his security clearance. That is punishable by up to five years in prison. The frequency and frankly bizarre nature of his meetings makes it impossible to treat this as an oversight. No one is going to forget a meeting where you ask the Russian ambassador to help you use secure Russian communications so you can talk directly to Putin. And, as Malcom Nance and others have pointed out, this kind of request is quite possibly a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. It certainly requires that Kushner's security clearance be pulled immediately. It is doubtful, however, that Trump will cut loose a member of the family and his most trusted adviser. That alone may create a confrontation with either the law or, perhaps finally, the Congress.
The obvious elephant in the room right now, (and there have been plenty of them in this investigation), is what were all those 18 unreported contacts that we currently know of are all about. Kate Brannen over at Newsweek has an interesting theory. I have already written about how the Mercers and Cambridge Analytica may have illegally influenced the Brexit vote. Well, all that same detail of data was available to Kushner and Bannon in the Trump campaign. Kushner and Cambridge Analytica have both bragged about their microtargeting capabilities in the 2016 election. And Steve Bannon was the Mercer-installed head of Cambridge Analytica.
The Newsweek article quotes BBC reporter Paul Wood who puts it all together:
"'This is a three-headed operation,' said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: First, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated 'bots', then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US 'news' sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls. The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of 'microtargeting'. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.'You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,' said the former official, 'you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.' This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed."
And Kushner and Bannon would have been at the heart of the microtargeting operation. And we also now know that the Russians spent far more heavily than we initially imagined on ads and planted stories using microtargeted information to disengage and suppress key Democratic voters. As Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Warner asks, "I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots. Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren’t even aware really raises some questions. I think that’s a worthwhile area of inquiry. How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?" The request for Trump campaign documents may just be the first step to getting that answer.
To speculate myself, might the success of Kushner's enabling of Russian microtargeting in order to get Trump actually elected make Trump believe that Kushner could do just about anything. It certainly is one possible explanation for Trump's giving unparalleled power to Kushner and believing the Jared alone can bring peace in the Middle East.
As I've said before, Flynn, Manafort, and Trump were all quite comfortable taking Russian money and they all knew at some level what the Russians wanted out of the Trump campaign. They didn't need any direct instructions, but that also doesn't mean they didn't get them. And that level of familiarity would certainly make Kushner comfortable with colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Remember, the Trump campaign was largely unfunded and the plan was to rely on the RNC for most of the campaign groundwork. In reality, it appears that the bulk of the spending for the Trump campaign actually came from the Russians. That then leads us down a whole different path of inquiry into violations of federal election law and perhaps just might make the Supreme Court rethink its Citizens United decision. But that's a discussion for another day.
The three stories from yesterday create a final link between the Russian hacking of the election, the collusion of the Trump campaign, and the financial crimes of selling access and even policies for personal gain. The outlines are now clear. We are just waiting for more devastating details.
Earlier in the day, reports surfaced that Trump was thinking not only about a staff shake-up but also about creating a "war room" to fight the burgeoning Russia scandal. The interesting thing about the war room was that it was to be headed by Bannon, Priebus, and Kushner. That seemed like a problem because Priebus has been implicated in the cover-up and Kushner has lied about his own contacts with the Russians. In fact, (and I can't believe I'm actually writing this), the only apparently "clean" one of the three, so far, (and more on that later), is Bannon.
But Kushner's involvement in the war room and even his ability to continue to work in the White House became even more dubious when the first bombshell from the Washington Post landed last night. That story says that, in a secret early December meeting between Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Flynn, and Kushner, Kushner proposed the idea of creating a secret back channel to Moscow, presumably Putin, and to do so by using Russia's secure communications systems either at the Russian Embassy or Consulate. Also discussed was using a third party in a foreign country as a conduit.
US intelligence picked up these details of the meeting when Kislyak reported his shock at Kushner's suggestion about using secure Russian communications when he reported back to Moscow. For Russian security services, having an American come into and use their secure facilities was problematic, to say the least.
In addition, we do know that a third party meeting was eventually set up between the Trump campaign and the Russians in early January, about ten days before Trump officially became President. The Trump transition had the crown prince of Abu Dhabi of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also fly in and meet secretly with them in early December. It had already been agreed that Flynn or Kushner would be too high profile for such a foreign meeting. Instead, it appears that Erik Prince, brother of now Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, met with a representative of Putin in the Seychelles, a meeting set up by the UAE.
The White House, for what its worth, has denied that the discussions in the secret meeting with the crown prince touched on any planning for the meeting in the Seychelles. They claim that the UAE was trying to influence Russian to withdraw its support for Iran, especially its actions in Syria, in return for an easing of US sanctions. Similarly, the New York Times reported last night that the desire to create a secret back channel to the Russians using secure Russian communications was so that Flynn could get a detailed briefing on Syria from Russian intelligence.
Neither of these explanations make any sense. Very simply, all Kushner and Flynn had to do was wait until inauguration and then they were free to talk to the Russians about anything and everything that they envisioned doing. And Flynn would be far more likely to get at least some honest details on Russian Syrian strategy if he could also offer some details on current US deployments and strategies in that country, something he would be totally privy to once Trump was inaugurated. In addition, if their stated reason was true, why did both Flynn and Kushner try to hide the existence of the meeting and the lie about its contents. And why did the White House deny any links to the Seychelles meeting.
The third bomb that dropped was also a direct hit on Kushner. This was a story from Reuters that claimed that Kushner had at least three other unreported contacts with the Russians, both during and after the campaign. Two of those contacts occurred between April and November of last year. These contacts by Kushner are part of the 18 undisclosed contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians that Reuters previously reported on. And as one of the Reuters reporters who wrote the story ominously said on Maddow last night, "these are the undisclosed contacts that we know about", certainly implying their may be others out there.
But here's the real kicker in the Reuters piece: "FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official". In that vein it is worth noting that Kushner also met with the Putin-appointed head of the Russian-owned bank, Vnesheconombank, in early December. That bank is currently under US sanctions. Interesting.
As David Frum points out, Bloomberg has reported that early 2017 was going to be a crucial time for Kushner Companies. The fees at its flagship, but money-losing, property at 666 Fifth Avenue were set to start increasing rapidly in 2017. Those fees continue to escalate until the loans are paid off. In addition, in December of 2017, the interest rate on the outstanding loans will also more than double. This accounts for the Kushners' ethically challenged and ultimately failed attempt to get the Chinese-backed Anbang Insurance to invest in the building and why the Kushner Companies are traveling around China trying to basically sell access to Trump in order to also round up investors for the building. In a declining, NYC real estate market, the Kushner Companies existence could very well be threatened.
The final bombshell, but actually the second one of the evening, and this one less directed at Jared Kushner directly and more at the Trump campaign in general, was the report that the Senate Intelligence Committee is requesting the Trump campaign produce all documents, emails, and phone record that are Russia-related going back to June 2015. As the Trump campaign has repeatedly said they had no interaction with the Russians, this shouldn't be hard to do. On the other hand, we know that claim is false and it will be interesting to see the volume of material that this request brings to the surface. But this is certainly a clear indication that the Trump campaign is now coming under serious scrutiny.
Jared Kushner is now in serious legal trouble. He has lied about his repeated contacts with the Russians on his security clearance. That is punishable by up to five years in prison. The frequency and frankly bizarre nature of his meetings makes it impossible to treat this as an oversight. No one is going to forget a meeting where you ask the Russian ambassador to help you use secure Russian communications so you can talk directly to Putin. And, as Malcom Nance and others have pointed out, this kind of request is quite possibly a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. It certainly requires that Kushner's security clearance be pulled immediately. It is doubtful, however, that Trump will cut loose a member of the family and his most trusted adviser. That alone may create a confrontation with either the law or, perhaps finally, the Congress.
The obvious elephant in the room right now, (and there have been plenty of them in this investigation), is what were all those 18 unreported contacts that we currently know of are all about. Kate Brannen over at Newsweek has an interesting theory. I have already written about how the Mercers and Cambridge Analytica may have illegally influenced the Brexit vote. Well, all that same detail of data was available to Kushner and Bannon in the Trump campaign. Kushner and Cambridge Analytica have both bragged about their microtargeting capabilities in the 2016 election. And Steve Bannon was the Mercer-installed head of Cambridge Analytica.
The Newsweek article quotes BBC reporter Paul Wood who puts it all together:
"'This is a three-headed operation,' said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: First, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated 'bots', then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US 'news' sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls. The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of 'microtargeting'. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.'You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,' said the former official, 'you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.' This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed."
And Kushner and Bannon would have been at the heart of the microtargeting operation. And we also now know that the Russians spent far more heavily than we initially imagined on ads and planted stories using microtargeted information to disengage and suppress key Democratic voters. As Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Warner asks, "I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots. Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren’t even aware really raises some questions. I think that’s a worthwhile area of inquiry. How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?" The request for Trump campaign documents may just be the first step to getting that answer.
To speculate myself, might the success of Kushner's enabling of Russian microtargeting in order to get Trump actually elected make Trump believe that Kushner could do just about anything. It certainly is one possible explanation for Trump's giving unparalleled power to Kushner and believing the Jared alone can bring peace in the Middle East.
As I've said before, Flynn, Manafort, and Trump were all quite comfortable taking Russian money and they all knew at some level what the Russians wanted out of the Trump campaign. They didn't need any direct instructions, but that also doesn't mean they didn't get them. And that level of familiarity would certainly make Kushner comfortable with colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Remember, the Trump campaign was largely unfunded and the plan was to rely on the RNC for most of the campaign groundwork. In reality, it appears that the bulk of the spending for the Trump campaign actually came from the Russians. That then leads us down a whole different path of inquiry into violations of federal election law and perhaps just might make the Supreme Court rethink its Citizens United decision. But that's a discussion for another day.
The three stories from yesterday create a final link between the Russian hacking of the election, the collusion of the Trump campaign, and the financial crimes of selling access and even policies for personal gain. The outlines are now clear. We are just waiting for more devastating details.
Friday, May 26, 2017
May Faces Real Possibility Of Hung Parliament As Lead Collapses
As we saw in the most recent US election, national polls do not necessarily translate into electoral victory, even when the polls rightly predict who will get the most votes nationally. But the latest polls out of the UK sure have to be troubling for Theresa May and the Conservatives.
The latest composite poll from BritainElects shows that the Conservative lead over Labour has shrunk to 13 points, 46% to 33%. But Labour has increased its position markedly in the last week or so and, in fact, the latest YouGuv poll actually shows that lead shrinking to a mere 5%. More importantly, in that YouGuv poll, the combination of Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Greens total 52% to the combination of Conservative and UKIP of just 47%, implying the very real possibility of a hung Parliament.
The turning point in the campaign was the release of the Conservative and Labour manifestos. Labour's was seen as far more reasonable than something coming from Jeremy Corbyn, but the Conservative manifesto was universally disliked. The so-called "dementia tax" has suppressed Tory support among its key base of older voters, even after the attempted reversal of the policy. In addition, Theresa May has shown herself to be incapable of comprehensibly defending the policies in the manifestos, repeatedly dodging questions and fobbing the details off to be worked out in Parliament. She has taken the same tack for months in regard to the Brexit negotiations.
It is still too early to see how the Manchester bombing will effect the race as May is seen far more favorably on terrorism than Corbyn. The YouGuv poll is one of the first after that tragedy which is why the resulting is slightly surprising. But the trend is clearly currently moving swiftly against the Conservatives. Part of this is probably a firming of support among Labour voters but a lot of it is the budding realization that Theresa May is quite possibly just not up to the job.
SNP leader Sturgeon has floated the idea of the SNP, Labour, and Liberal Democrats banding together as a progressive bulwark against the Conservatives and UKIP. This would most certainly make an odd triumvirate as the SNP and LibDems are opposed to Brexit while Labour technically supports it. Labour has already vetoed Sturgeon's idea and the Liberal Democrats have clearly stated they will not enter a coalition with Labour.
But the Liberal Democrats may once again be asked to make a fateful choice as they may be the party who will actually choose the next Prime Minister. Hopefully, they will remember their last disastrous choice to form a government with Cameron.
For Conservatives and Theresa May, the decision to call the snap election is looking like a disaster. There is still time to right the ship and they can perhaps once again hope that the polls are wrong like they were in 2015 and with Brexit. But it currently looks like the best result the Tories will get, assuming it is not a hung Parliament, is a majority that is actually smaller than what they had coming into the election. That result would be another indicator that, despite all her talk of being a "strong leader", May herself is far from it and will have real difficulty getting a good deal for the UK in the Brexit negotiations where the EU has all the power.
The latest composite poll from BritainElects shows that the Conservative lead over Labour has shrunk to 13 points, 46% to 33%. But Labour has increased its position markedly in the last week or so and, in fact, the latest YouGuv poll actually shows that lead shrinking to a mere 5%. More importantly, in that YouGuv poll, the combination of Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP, and Greens total 52% to the combination of Conservative and UKIP of just 47%, implying the very real possibility of a hung Parliament.
The turning point in the campaign was the release of the Conservative and Labour manifestos. Labour's was seen as far more reasonable than something coming from Jeremy Corbyn, but the Conservative manifesto was universally disliked. The so-called "dementia tax" has suppressed Tory support among its key base of older voters, even after the attempted reversal of the policy. In addition, Theresa May has shown herself to be incapable of comprehensibly defending the policies in the manifestos, repeatedly dodging questions and fobbing the details off to be worked out in Parliament. She has taken the same tack for months in regard to the Brexit negotiations.
It is still too early to see how the Manchester bombing will effect the race as May is seen far more favorably on terrorism than Corbyn. The YouGuv poll is one of the first after that tragedy which is why the resulting is slightly surprising. But the trend is clearly currently moving swiftly against the Conservatives. Part of this is probably a firming of support among Labour voters but a lot of it is the budding realization that Theresa May is quite possibly just not up to the job.
SNP leader Sturgeon has floated the idea of the SNP, Labour, and Liberal Democrats banding together as a progressive bulwark against the Conservatives and UKIP. This would most certainly make an odd triumvirate as the SNP and LibDems are opposed to Brexit while Labour technically supports it. Labour has already vetoed Sturgeon's idea and the Liberal Democrats have clearly stated they will not enter a coalition with Labour.
But the Liberal Democrats may once again be asked to make a fateful choice as they may be the party who will actually choose the next Prime Minister. Hopefully, they will remember their last disastrous choice to form a government with Cameron.
For Conservatives and Theresa May, the decision to call the snap election is looking like a disaster. There is still time to right the ship and they can perhaps once again hope that the polls are wrong like they were in 2015 and with Brexit. But it currently looks like the best result the Tories will get, assuming it is not a hung Parliament, is a majority that is actually smaller than what they had coming into the election. That result would be another indicator that, despite all her talk of being a "strong leader", May herself is far from it and will have real difficulty getting a good deal for the UK in the Brexit negotiations where the EU has all the power.
Recap Of NHL Stanley Cup Conference Finals
The NHL's Stanley Cup Conference Finals wrapped up last night when Pittsburgh defeated Ottawa in one of the all-time great Game 7s, with Chris Kunitz scoring the series winner in double overtime. Out in the West, Nashville kept its incredible playoff run going with an almost routine win over the Anaheim Ducks in six games. Here's a quick recap of each series.
Eastern Conference
Eastern Conference
Pittsburgh Penguins v. Ottawa Senators - Result: Pittsburgh in 7; Prediction: Pittsburgh in 5.
The Penguins were the clear favorite coming into this series but, as I've said before, Ottawa has seemingly being succeeding with smoke and mirrors all season long. After the Senators picked up an overtime winner in Game 1 against a tired Penguins team coming off their Game 7 win against Washington, followed by the Senators 5-1 drubbing in another flat effort from the Penguins in Game 3, it looked like Ottawa may have been in the driver's seat. But the Penguins won a tight, hard-fought Game 4 on a late goal by Phil Kessel to even the series at 2. The Senators responded with a totally flat game of their own, losing 7-0 in Pittsburgh and it looked like the series was over. Game 6 was again largely dominated by the Penguins but Craig Anderson was spectacular and Ottawa's almost rope-a-dope strategy allowed them to rally from the early deficit and hold on for a 2-1 win, forcing Game 7.
And it was a classic. I think there was just one whistle in the first 10 or 11 minutes of the game, as the teams went up and down the ice. But, by the end of the first, the Penguins started to dominate, spending long stretches controlling the puck in the Senators zone but the Sens' defense mostly kept them to the outside, limiting any great chances. And when Kunitz put the Penguins up 1-0 in the second, it looked like lights out. For about 20 seconds, until Erik Karlsson took one of his patented end-to-end rushes and set up Mark Stone with a delicate and delightful pass who beat Murray top-shelf, short side to tie it. In the third, the pattern repeated itself with the Senators seemingly hanging on for dear life and Anderson bailing them out when they did give up good scoring opportunities. When the refs made a horrendous interference call on Phaneuf, helped by an Olympic-worthy dive by Phil Kessel, on what was on icing call anyway and the Penguins scored on the power play with just 8 minutes left, again it looked all over for the Senators. It didn't help when Phil Kessel was hit by a deflected pass and went down with the Senators controlling the puck in the Pittsburgh slot and the refs blew the play dead because they though Kessel was seriously hurt. But nothing daunts this year's Senators and another blast from the point from Karlsson rang off the post, then the back of Murray, and was deposited in the net by Ryan Dzingel to tie the game with just over 5 minutes left.
The first overtime basically repeated the start of the game, with both teams not holding back and going up and down the ice, trading chances and really going for the win. Pittsburgh, though continued to dominate and it seemed only a matter of time before they would win it. And sure enough, they did when Crosby set up Kunitz in the high slot and he put the puck over the stick side shoulder of a screened Anderson to send Pittsburgh to the finals.
It was a classic series but you always had the feeling that Pittsburgh was somehow in control. But Anderson was spectacular, registering, I believe, over 40 saves in each of the last two games. And Karlsson was again magnificent despite being noticeably limited by the two stress fractures in his ankle. Every time the Senators fell behind, in this series and series before, he put the team on his shoulders and got them back in the game. The Penguins were the Penguins. Dominant and, for the most part relentless, just throwing wave after wave at the Senators. As I've said, it always felt like it was only a matter of time before they won. It's a credit to the Senators that it took until the second overtime of Game 7 for that to happen.
Western Conference
Anaheim Ducks v. Nashville Predators - Result: Nashville in 6; Prediction: Anaheim in 6.
Like the Penguins coming off their Game 7 win against the Capitals, the Ducks were also coming off their Game 7 win against the Oilers and it showed in a pretty lackluster effort in Game 1. Even so, they were able to force overtime with a third period goal before James Neal won it for the Predators in overtime. The Ducks easily leveled the series in Game 2 as Pekka Rinne had his worst game of the playoffs by far. And the Ducks again looked in good shape in Game 3 taking a 1-0 lead into the third which they immediately gave up a few minutes into the final period. Roman Josi then scored late for the Preds and the Ducks began to look very vulnerable. They may have generated lots of zone time but could not get the puck past Pekka Rinne. In a must win Game 4, the Ducks again took a lead into the third period, this time 2-0, and again blew it, giving up two goals in the last seven minutes, including Forsberg's tying goal with just 35 seconds left. But Corey Perry bailed the Ducks out with his overtime winner.
With the series tied 2-2, the goaltenders took over and it was not a pretty match up. Pekka Rinne was more than spectacular in Game 6, single handedly stealing that game for the Predators 3-1. And in the must-win Game 6 for Anaheim, James Reimer, filling in for the injured John Gibson, gave up four goals on 16 shots at one point in the game, while Rinne was barring the door at the other end as the Preds closed out the series 6-3.
The Ducks were let down by their young defense and poor goaltending. And while Reimer, who came in for Gibson after the first period in Game 5, was not solely to blame for all the goals as there were two empty-netters and some glaring defensive breakdowns, an .864 save percentage in the time he played will just not cut it, especially in the playoffs. Just ask the Washington Capitals. In addition, the inability to hold on to third period leads and the lack of scoring from Kessler and Cogliano really hurt them. Of course, that lack of scoring was largely due to the superb play of Rinne who was simply unbeatable throughout most of the series and whose puck-handling behind the net kept the Ducks from being able to wear out the Predator defense. In addition, the Predators defense were always an offensive factor and Filip Forsberg came up huge in the series, scoring five goals, with three points in the deciding Games 5 and 6.
To my mind, regardless of what happens in the finals, there are only two players in the running for playoff MVP and they are Rinne and Karlsson. Both men were clearly the best player on the ice, not only for their own team but often among both teams. Rinne was impeccable (sorry, I couldn't resist again) and Karlsson just carried his team whenever they were down.
The Finals start on Monday and I will be back with my predictions (which have not been worth much in the last two rounds) later in the weekend.
Thursday, May 25, 2017
First Confirmed Case Of Collusion Between Russians And Republicans
I have pointed out in previous posts that the Russians did more than hack our election to help Donald Trump. They hacked the election to help the Republican party, up and down the ballot. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were certainly well aware of Russia's efforts at least to help Trump but were perfectly content to sit silently by and take advantage of those efforts.
Today, we have the first definitive example of the Russians colluding with a Republican operative in order to influence a specific election. And it was not the presidential election but a contested House seat in Florida. According to a report the Wall Street Journal, a Republican political operative in Florida, Aaron Nevins, sent a message to Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 requesting data on voter turnout and election strategy related to Florida elections hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Committee. That request was honored and Nevins received 2.5 gigabytes of information from the Russian hacker that included details on not only congressional races in Florida but also in Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Texas. Nevins then posted some of that data as well as his analysis of it on his pseudonymous blog.
Nevins described the data he received as "Basically if this was a war, this is the map to where all the troops are deployed...This is probably worth millions of dollars." He apparently shared this information with some other Florida journalists.
According to Anthony Bustamante, a campaign consultant for at that time Republican House aspirant Brian Mast, "I did adjust some voting targets based on some data I saw from the leaks", changing the focus of his advertising and email strategy. That claim has been refuted by Mast's office. But the fact is that Mast flipped a Democratic-held seat in November.
In addition, Russian hackers then forwarded Nevins' blog post to Roger Stone, an adviser to the Trump campaign. Stone denies that he forwarded that information to anyone else. I don't have the explicit denial from Stone, but the Journal's report says that Stone "didn’t share any hacked material from it with anyone." That does not rule out the possibility Stone passed on the link to the blog to other people.
It was already known that Russian hackers had posted hacked Democratic documents that targeted contested congressional races in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina. And we also know that Ryan and McConnell refused Democratic requests to not use this illegally obtained material in the election. We also know that certain Republican campaigns used the hacked data to help them in the election.
Today's news, however, is the first time we have a direct confirmation of a Republican operative colluding with the Russians to actually receive information that was apparently used to defeat a Democratic congressional candidate. And Mr. Nevins perfectly sums up the current Republican party's hostile attitude to democracy itself in its quest for power, saying, "If your interests align, never shut any doors in politics." Treason is acceptable as long as Republicans win.
Today, we have the first definitive example of the Russians colluding with a Republican operative in order to influence a specific election. And it was not the presidential election but a contested House seat in Florida. According to a report the Wall Street Journal, a Republican political operative in Florida, Aaron Nevins, sent a message to Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 requesting data on voter turnout and election strategy related to Florida elections hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Committee. That request was honored and Nevins received 2.5 gigabytes of information from the Russian hacker that included details on not only congressional races in Florida but also in Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Texas. Nevins then posted some of that data as well as his analysis of it on his pseudonymous blog.
Nevins described the data he received as "Basically if this was a war, this is the map to where all the troops are deployed...This is probably worth millions of dollars." He apparently shared this information with some other Florida journalists.
According to Anthony Bustamante, a campaign consultant for at that time Republican House aspirant Brian Mast, "I did adjust some voting targets based on some data I saw from the leaks", changing the focus of his advertising and email strategy. That claim has been refuted by Mast's office. But the fact is that Mast flipped a Democratic-held seat in November.
In addition, Russian hackers then forwarded Nevins' blog post to Roger Stone, an adviser to the Trump campaign. Stone denies that he forwarded that information to anyone else. I don't have the explicit denial from Stone, but the Journal's report says that Stone "didn’t share any hacked material from it with anyone." That does not rule out the possibility Stone passed on the link to the blog to other people.
It was already known that Russian hackers had posted hacked Democratic documents that targeted contested congressional races in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina. And we also know that Ryan and McConnell refused Democratic requests to not use this illegally obtained material in the election. We also know that certain Republican campaigns used the hacked data to help them in the election.
Today's news, however, is the first time we have a direct confirmation of a Republican operative colluding with the Russians to actually receive information that was apparently used to defeat a Democratic congressional candidate. And Mr. Nevins perfectly sums up the current Republican party's hostile attitude to democracy itself in its quest for power, saying, "If your interests align, never shut any doors in politics." Treason is acceptable as long as Republicans win.
Meadows Shocked AHCA Would Price Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Out Of Market
This is absolutely mind-blowing. Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, and driver to make the AHCA even more cruel and inhuman than its original version, apparently never realized that the plan would force millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions to get priced out of the health insurance market.
Incredibly, Meadows cheered the CBO score yesterday when it first came out. But when reporters asked about the higher premiums that people with pre-existing conditions would be charged under the state waivers of community rating and essential health benefits that Meadows himself championed, he replied, "Well, that's not what I read".
Which makes you wonder if he read the bill at all or even took any time to understand its implications other than the fact it would take over $1 trillion out of health care, pass the majority of those savings on to rich people and corporations with a massive tax cut, and leave only $119 billion in deficit reduction.
When he was given the passage in the CBO report concerning pre-existing conditions, he was taken aback and mentioned the possibility of revisiting the funding of the AHCA's high risk pools. Whereupon, Meadows broke down, saying, "Listen, I lost my sister to breast cancer. I lost my dad to lung cancer. If anybody is sensitive to preexisting conditions, it’s me. I’m not going to make a political decision today that affects somebody’s sister or father because I wouldn’t do it to myself. In the end, we’ve got to make sure there’s enough funding there to handle preexisting conditions and drive down premiums. And if we can’t do those three things, then we will have failed."
I'll let him in on a little secret. Without the three-legged stool of requiring insurance coverage, community rating and essential benefits, and premium support, he will fail. With those, he can succeed and all it will take is a few tweaks to Obamacare.
Either Meadows is a great actor, or one of the dumbest people in Congress (and that's a pretty high bar these days), or so caught up in the right-wing think tank and media bubble that spouts continual lies that he believes everything thing he hears. It is hard to imagine that someone with this much power and who has had eight years to study the issue could be so incredibly, seemingly willfully, ignorant of the cruelty and devastation of his proposals. It is a perfect example of how removed from reality much of the Republican House caucus has become.
Incredibly, Meadows cheered the CBO score yesterday when it first came out. But when reporters asked about the higher premiums that people with pre-existing conditions would be charged under the state waivers of community rating and essential health benefits that Meadows himself championed, he replied, "Well, that's not what I read".
Which makes you wonder if he read the bill at all or even took any time to understand its implications other than the fact it would take over $1 trillion out of health care, pass the majority of those savings on to rich people and corporations with a massive tax cut, and leave only $119 billion in deficit reduction.
When he was given the passage in the CBO report concerning pre-existing conditions, he was taken aback and mentioned the possibility of revisiting the funding of the AHCA's high risk pools. Whereupon, Meadows broke down, saying, "Listen, I lost my sister to breast cancer. I lost my dad to lung cancer. If anybody is sensitive to preexisting conditions, it’s me. I’m not going to make a political decision today that affects somebody’s sister or father because I wouldn’t do it to myself. In the end, we’ve got to make sure there’s enough funding there to handle preexisting conditions and drive down premiums. And if we can’t do those three things, then we will have failed."
I'll let him in on a little secret. Without the three-legged stool of requiring insurance coverage, community rating and essential benefits, and premium support, he will fail. With those, he can succeed and all it will take is a few tweaks to Obamacare.
Either Meadows is a great actor, or one of the dumbest people in Congress (and that's a pretty high bar these days), or so caught up in the right-wing think tank and media bubble that spouts continual lies that he believes everything thing he hears. It is hard to imagine that someone with this much power and who has had eight years to study the issue could be so incredibly, seemingly willfully, ignorant of the cruelty and devastation of his proposals. It is a perfect example of how removed from reality much of the Republican House caucus has become.
Gianforte's Lie About His Assault Is Just As Bad As The Assault Itself
As bad as Greg Gianforte's criminal assault of a reporter for merely asking a question at a public event was, the statement put out by his campaign after the attack is perhaps even worse and the perfect metaphor for the Republican party writ large. That statement was a bold-faced, provable lie and the campaign knew it when they put it out. But the gist was clear, that Gianforte's behavior was OK because of who the victim was.
Gianforte's assault is part of the continuing attack on the First Amendment rights of the free press that has been an undercurrent of GOP politics for decades but has recently come out in the open under the Trump administration. In West Virginia, a reporter was arrested simply for asking a question of Tom Price in the public space in the West Virginia Capitol. In addition, another reporter was stalked, manhandled, and kept from asking questions by security guards at an FCC press conference. And that is on top of Trump's continually prohibiting the US press from attending some his public events, most particularly his meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak where even the Russian press was allowed.
More disturbing, to me at least, was the statement that Gianforte's campaign put out in the immediate aftermath of the event:
The campaign absolutely knew that virtually every sentence in this statement would be proven to be a lie. There were multiple witnesses to event who subsequently gave statements to police that showed that Jacobs was not being aggressive, that the interview was taking place at a public event, that Gianforte attacked Jacobs without provocation, body-slammed him, and then started punching Jacobs while Jacobs was on the ground with Gianforte on top of him.
But for Gianforte, the lie was just a convenient vehicle to promote the less than subtle message to his voters that Jacobs, as a member of the liberal press, deserved what Gianforte gave him. And it did so knowing that their tribal supporters, with some help from a large segment of the media, would never call them on its brazen lies.
This is the same mentality that allows the GOP to lie about covering pre-existing conditions and forcing over 20 million Americans to lose health insurance in order to give the rich and business a $1 trillion tax cut. For their base, those 20 million don't deserve health care to begin with. It allows Tom Price to say that people with disabilities, on welfare, or with pre-existing conditions are less deserving than his base of taxpayers. It allows Trump to try and institute an unconstitutional Muslim ban (which was just upheld by 4th Circuit as such) because they are not deserving. It allows Ben Carson to call poverty a "state of mind". It allows Fox News to perpetuate continual lies such as the Seth Rich murder fabrication. And it allows current members of the House to blame this on "tension" created by the "left" and who will welcome Gianforte into their caucus with open arms if he wins.
It reflects a party that refuses to represent all their constituents and instead only represents the empowerment of their party and the minority of Americans that make up its base. It reflects a party that has lost total interest in any semblance of democracy and is only interested in the maintenance and expression of its own power.
Gianforte's assault is part of the continuing attack on the First Amendment rights of the free press that has been an undercurrent of GOP politics for decades but has recently come out in the open under the Trump administration. In West Virginia, a reporter was arrested simply for asking a question of Tom Price in the public space in the West Virginia Capitol. In addition, another reporter was stalked, manhandled, and kept from asking questions by security guards at an FCC press conference. And that is on top of Trump's continually prohibiting the US press from attending some his public events, most particularly his meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak where even the Russian press was allowed.
More disturbing, to me at least, was the statement that Gianforte's campaign put out in the immediate aftermath of the event:
But for Gianforte, the lie was just a convenient vehicle to promote the less than subtle message to his voters that Jacobs, as a member of the liberal press, deserved what Gianforte gave him. And it did so knowing that their tribal supporters, with some help from a large segment of the media, would never call them on its brazen lies.
This is the same mentality that allows the GOP to lie about covering pre-existing conditions and forcing over 20 million Americans to lose health insurance in order to give the rich and business a $1 trillion tax cut. For their base, those 20 million don't deserve health care to begin with. It allows Tom Price to say that people with disabilities, on welfare, or with pre-existing conditions are less deserving than his base of taxpayers. It allows Trump to try and institute an unconstitutional Muslim ban (which was just upheld by 4th Circuit as such) because they are not deserving. It allows Ben Carson to call poverty a "state of mind". It allows Fox News to perpetuate continual lies such as the Seth Rich murder fabrication. And it allows current members of the House to blame this on "tension" created by the "left" and who will welcome Gianforte into their caucus with open arms if he wins.
It reflects a party that refuses to represent all their constituents and instead only represents the empowerment of their party and the minority of Americans that make up its base. It reflects a party that has lost total interest in any semblance of democracy and is only interested in the maintenance and expression of its own power.
As Details Emerge, The 2016 Election Becomes More And More Incredible
Historians will look back at the 2016 election and wonder just how it all went so wrong. They will marvel at the fact that the dominant issue in the coverage of the campaign was a red-herring scandal about whether there was improper handling of totally banal emails by one candidate while the government knew that at least two of the top advisers to the other candidate were subject to manipulation by the Russians but hid that fact from the American voter. They will be equally confounded that the Russians were also able to successfully run an operation that ended up with the Director of the FBI intervening in the election on the side of the candidate, who the Director knew had advisers that were being influenced by the Russians, in a way never before seen in American history. Yet that is what happened.
Yesterday, we learned that intelligence agencies collected recorded conversation by top Russian officials discussing how they could use their influence with both then Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and top Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn to sway the attitudes and opinions of Trump himself. It was information like this that caused CIA Director Brennan to refer the matter to the FBI for a counter-espionage investigation.
Manafort, in particular, had a long history with the Russians due to his decade-long period as adviser for the Russians and their candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, in Ukraine. For that duty, he was paid millions not only by Yanukovych but presumably by the Russians as well. His selection as campaign manager was one of the more interesting developments early on in the campaign as he had no history or particular skill-set for US domestic politics for well over a decade. On the other hand, he made perfect sense for the Russians. And, as is made clear by the limited financial history we know about him, Manafort always made sure he got paid. Since he was ostensibly working for Trump for free, the open question is who exactly was paying him.
Flynn, as well, was getting directly paid by the Russians. So far, reports have shown that Flynn received over $65,000 in direct payments from Russian-backed firms in 2015 alone, the largest portion of which was for a trip to Moscow to speak at the Kremlin propaganda arm, RT, and attend its gala dinner with a seat right next to Vladimir Putin.
As Malcolm Nance said last night on MSNBC, it seems as though Russian officials were almost treating Flynn and Manafort as controlled intelligence assets. Manafort's getting the RNC platform changed on Crimea could well be proof of that direct influence. And, as Brennan pointed out in his testimony yesterday, "Frequently, individuals who go along that treasonous path do not even realize they’re along that path until it gets to be too late." This statement could well apply to both Flynn and Manafort.
In addition, we also learned yesterday that part of the reason that James Comey felt obligated to hold the press conference in violation of DOJ procedures where he lambasted Clinton for her "extremely careless" handling of emails was because of a document created by the Russians cited an email claiming that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had compromised herself in the investigation. The document, which was somehow provided to the FBI as a purported Russian intelligence analysis, claimed that the Russians had intercepted an email from the DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to a member of the George Soros' funded Open Society Foundation claiming that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had informed a member of the Clinton campaign that she would not let the Clinton email investigation go too far.
This document, along with Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona, led Comey to believe that Lynch could not be trusted in the email investigation and prompted his unprecedented press conference.
It turns out, however, that not long after that press conference, the FBI determined that this document was a forgery and Comey had himself become a victim of the Russian hacking of our election. But it also highlights Comey's initial reaction about everything seemingly associated with Democrats and that is that they are always trying to hide something. Rather than waiting for the full analysis of this document which eventually showed it was forged, he was inclined to believe it and acted on it. And rather than waiting to do a full analysis of the Abedin emails, he again believed it was "new information" when it turned out they were all duplicates.
As I detailed in a prior post, the coordination between the members of what became the Trump campaign and Russian interests existed long before the campaign even started. Trump had been getting his financing from Russian money for well over a decade. Manafort had essentially been on the Russian payroll for about that long as well. Flynn was a more recent addition, getting paid by Russian after he was fired by Obama as DNI. They all knew that whatever could do to please the Russians would just keep the money rolling in. They didn't really need direct instructions. But that doesn't mean that they didn't get them.
Yesterday, we learned that intelligence agencies collected recorded conversation by top Russian officials discussing how they could use their influence with both then Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and top Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn to sway the attitudes and opinions of Trump himself. It was information like this that caused CIA Director Brennan to refer the matter to the FBI for a counter-espionage investigation.
Manafort, in particular, had a long history with the Russians due to his decade-long period as adviser for the Russians and their candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, in Ukraine. For that duty, he was paid millions not only by Yanukovych but presumably by the Russians as well. His selection as campaign manager was one of the more interesting developments early on in the campaign as he had no history or particular skill-set for US domestic politics for well over a decade. On the other hand, he made perfect sense for the Russians. And, as is made clear by the limited financial history we know about him, Manafort always made sure he got paid. Since he was ostensibly working for Trump for free, the open question is who exactly was paying him.
Flynn, as well, was getting directly paid by the Russians. So far, reports have shown that Flynn received over $65,000 in direct payments from Russian-backed firms in 2015 alone, the largest portion of which was for a trip to Moscow to speak at the Kremlin propaganda arm, RT, and attend its gala dinner with a seat right next to Vladimir Putin.
As Malcolm Nance said last night on MSNBC, it seems as though Russian officials were almost treating Flynn and Manafort as controlled intelligence assets. Manafort's getting the RNC platform changed on Crimea could well be proof of that direct influence. And, as Brennan pointed out in his testimony yesterday, "Frequently, individuals who go along that treasonous path do not even realize they’re along that path until it gets to be too late." This statement could well apply to both Flynn and Manafort.
In addition, we also learned yesterday that part of the reason that James Comey felt obligated to hold the press conference in violation of DOJ procedures where he lambasted Clinton for her "extremely careless" handling of emails was because of a document created by the Russians cited an email claiming that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had compromised herself in the investigation. The document, which was somehow provided to the FBI as a purported Russian intelligence analysis, claimed that the Russians had intercepted an email from the DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to a member of the George Soros' funded Open Society Foundation claiming that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had informed a member of the Clinton campaign that she would not let the Clinton email investigation go too far.
This document, along with Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona, led Comey to believe that Lynch could not be trusted in the email investigation and prompted his unprecedented press conference.
It turns out, however, that not long after that press conference, the FBI determined that this document was a forgery and Comey had himself become a victim of the Russian hacking of our election. But it also highlights Comey's initial reaction about everything seemingly associated with Democrats and that is that they are always trying to hide something. Rather than waiting for the full analysis of this document which eventually showed it was forged, he was inclined to believe it and acted on it. And rather than waiting to do a full analysis of the Abedin emails, he again believed it was "new information" when it turned out they were all duplicates.
As I detailed in a prior post, the coordination between the members of what became the Trump campaign and Russian interests existed long before the campaign even started. Trump had been getting his financing from Russian money for well over a decade. Manafort had essentially been on the Russian payroll for about that long as well. Flynn was a more recent addition, getting paid by Russian after he was fired by Obama as DNI. They all knew that whatever could do to please the Russians would just keep the money rolling in. They didn't really need direct instructions. But that doesn't mean that they didn't get them.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Donald Trump Is A National Security Nightmare
Donald Trump is a national security nightmare. He treats classified secrets as nuggets to be shared with others he is trying to impress, creating danger for the United States and its allies.
First, there was his divulging the existence of an Israeli spy within the top hierarchy of ISIS to the Russians. This effectively neutered the effectiveness of one of the most important sources of intelligence the West has about ISIS, not to mention infuriating our allies and making it less likely that they will continue to share critical intelligence with us.
Then, the administration released the name of the Manchester bomber, completely ignoring the Brits' request to have him remain anonymous in order to further their investigation. That investigation has apparently uncovered a terrorist cell but the early identification of the bomber may have both hindered the investigation or allowed other members of the cell to escape. In the wake of the Israeli spy revelation and now this, you can bet British intelligence will be far more careful in dealing with the Trump administration going forward.
Then, Trump had a phone call with Philippine President Duterte where he not only praised Duterte's extra-judicial killings of supposed drug dealers but also revealed that two US nuclear submarines were stationed off the North Korean coast. The US never divulges the location of its submarines and giving their location provides vital intelligence for other countries to ensure or test the accuracy of their anti-submarine technology. The Chinese, for instance, are probably delighted to have this piece of intelligence.
All this, in just a couple of weeks. And you can be sure there are other secrets Trump has divulged that we don't know about. We only learned about the nuclear sub on because the Philippine's provided a readout of the call. There was nothing from the Trump administration.
How long are the Republicans going to put our country and our allies in danger by enabling this man, who is clearly unfit to be President, to remain in office. Are tax cuts really worth the risk?
First, there was his divulging the existence of an Israeli spy within the top hierarchy of ISIS to the Russians. This effectively neutered the effectiveness of one of the most important sources of intelligence the West has about ISIS, not to mention infuriating our allies and making it less likely that they will continue to share critical intelligence with us.
Then, the administration released the name of the Manchester bomber, completely ignoring the Brits' request to have him remain anonymous in order to further their investigation. That investigation has apparently uncovered a terrorist cell but the early identification of the bomber may have both hindered the investigation or allowed other members of the cell to escape. In the wake of the Israeli spy revelation and now this, you can bet British intelligence will be far more careful in dealing with the Trump administration going forward.
Then, Trump had a phone call with Philippine President Duterte where he not only praised Duterte's extra-judicial killings of supposed drug dealers but also revealed that two US nuclear submarines were stationed off the North Korean coast. The US never divulges the location of its submarines and giving their location provides vital intelligence for other countries to ensure or test the accuracy of their anti-submarine technology. The Chinese, for instance, are probably delighted to have this piece of intelligence.
All this, in just a couple of weeks. And you can be sure there are other secrets Trump has divulged that we don't know about. We only learned about the nuclear sub on because the Philippine's provided a readout of the call. There was nothing from the Trump administration.
How long are the Republicans going to put our country and our allies in danger by enabling this man, who is clearly unfit to be President, to remain in office. Are tax cuts really worth the risk?
Surprise! Uber May Have Engaged In Massive Wage Theft In NYC
Does Uber management spend each and every day thinking about how it can rip more people off and create even more bad publicity for the company? It certainly appears so. Today's Uber revelation was that the company was deducting its commission based on the full fare, which includes taxes and fees, rather than the lower cost of the ride only, essentially bilking tens of millions in commissions from drivers in New York City over the last few years.
Uber has agreed to pay these drivers back with interest. But the revelation raises even more troubling questions for Uber about who actually pays for those sales taxes and fees. In New York, those taxes and fees can be pretty hefty, with a 9% sales tax and a 2.5% fee to cover workers' compensation and other benefits. These fees are supposed to be paid by the passenger, essentially as an addition to the fare and then passed on to the state. But Uber is apparently deducting these taxes and fees from the drivers' pay, essentially making the drivers pay the tax. Uber's response is that the taxes and fees are included in the fare, using the example of selling a slice of pizza for $1 that includes the sales tax.
Unfortunately, Uber's receipts for drivers show that this is not the case. Out of state trips in New York, which are frequent in New York City, are not charged sales tax by the state. Uber, however, charges the same fare regardless of whether the destination is in-state or out of state, implying that sales tax is not included in the fare.
If, as it appears, Uber is making the drivers pay these taxes and fees, then it is a clear case of wage theft. A driver advocacy group in New York is already making that claim. Estimates are that the wage theft could amount to more than $200 million and, if the case is proved, the drivers could receive double the compensation.
I have written many times about Uber's continual criminal and ethical breaches. Does any one doubt that wage theft and avoiding its share of taxes is not typical of Uber's approach to business? And this case in New York raises the question of what happens in other jurisdictions where government levies taxes and fees. If Uber was willing to flout the law in New York, one of its most important markets, you can be sure they are doing that in other localities that are far less influential and important.
It really is time to RICO this serial criminal enterprise called Uber into oblivion.
Uber has agreed to pay these drivers back with interest. But the revelation raises even more troubling questions for Uber about who actually pays for those sales taxes and fees. In New York, those taxes and fees can be pretty hefty, with a 9% sales tax and a 2.5% fee to cover workers' compensation and other benefits. These fees are supposed to be paid by the passenger, essentially as an addition to the fare and then passed on to the state. But Uber is apparently deducting these taxes and fees from the drivers' pay, essentially making the drivers pay the tax. Uber's response is that the taxes and fees are included in the fare, using the example of selling a slice of pizza for $1 that includes the sales tax.
Unfortunately, Uber's receipts for drivers show that this is not the case. Out of state trips in New York, which are frequent in New York City, are not charged sales tax by the state. Uber, however, charges the same fare regardless of whether the destination is in-state or out of state, implying that sales tax is not included in the fare.
If, as it appears, Uber is making the drivers pay these taxes and fees, then it is a clear case of wage theft. A driver advocacy group in New York is already making that claim. Estimates are that the wage theft could amount to more than $200 million and, if the case is proved, the drivers could receive double the compensation.
I have written many times about Uber's continual criminal and ethical breaches. Does any one doubt that wage theft and avoiding its share of taxes is not typical of Uber's approach to business? And this case in New York raises the question of what happens in other jurisdictions where government levies taxes and fees. If Uber was willing to flout the law in New York, one of its most important markets, you can be sure they are doing that in other localities that are far less influential and important.
It really is time to RICO this serial criminal enterprise called Uber into oblivion.
Trump Has Already Moved To His Last Line Of Defense
It looks like Donald Trump has already reached the last line of defense with regard to collusion with the Russians and obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, the evidence against Trump and his campaign just keeps growing day by day.
Yesterday, it was revealed Trump made another two attempts to obstruct Comey's FBI inquiry. Shortly after Comey revealed that there was an ongoing investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion in late March, Trump contacted both Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and director of the National Security Agency Mike Rogers and asked them to publicly deny that there was any evidence of collusion. Both declined the President's "request". In addition, Trump's senior advisers asked senior intelligence officials about the possibility of getting them to intervene with Comey to shut his investigation down.
This marks the sixth specific attempt that Trump has made to stymie Comey's investigation since he became President only four months ago. There was the dinner where Trump asked for Comey's loyalty and the private meeting where Trump asked Comey to "let this go". Both those meetings came immediately after the White House had received information about the expanding status of the Russian investigation, the first after the Sally Yates meeting and the second after Comey's announcement that collusion was part of the investigation. Then there was the actual firing of Yates and Comey. I could also add the attempt by Priebus to get Burr and Nunes, the heads of the intelligence committees, to push back on the story as well. And those are just the ones we currently know about.
In addition, we also heard from former CIA head John Brennan yesterday who testified that he saw intelligence last summer that "revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign". That intelligence was troubling enough for him to refer the matter to the FBI for a counter-intelligence investigation. That is, in fact, how Comey's investigation came to be.
This is an incredibly important revelation. Brennan is an experienced Washington insider with years in intelligence. He saw a pattern of conduct and contacts that was recognizable to him and disturbing enough to recommend a counter-intelligence operation by the FBI. This information must have been pretty compelling because Brennan would certainly realize just how explosive asking the FBI to begin an investigation of a presidential campaign a mere few months before the election would be. It would not be a step that Brennan would take lightly and without real consideration. Now, as we saw in the run-up to the Iraq war, intelligence is not real evidence in a legal sense and Brennan made that point repeatedly under Republican questioning. But it is evidence of a possibility.
Which brings us back to Trump's request to Coats and Rogers to publicly state there was no evidence of collusion. Based on what Brennan knew and what Coats and Rogers would now know in their current capacity, Trump was asking them to make a false statement. There was clearly enough evidence of possible collusion to convice Brennan and added to that is the Russian dossier, which has had numerous elements of it corroborated, and the remarkable synergy between Russian interests, timely WikiLeaks revelations, targeted Russian fake news, and the talking points and strategies of the Trump campaign.
In addition, Brennan's alert to the FBI makes it clear that possible collusion was part of the FBI investigation of the Russian hacking of the election from the very beginning. In September, the Obama administration was so concerned that it provided an intelligence briefing to the gang of eight in Congress, which would have included McConnell and Ryan. The purpose of that meeting was to get a bipartisan statement condemning the Russian hacking. McConnell specifically refused, saying the evidence was suspect and Ryan apparently dutifully went along. It seems entirely reasonable to think that the possibility that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia was part of that briefing. After all, Harry Reid pressed Brennan to release the damaging information he had about Russian hacking that the American people deserved to know just a few weeks later. If Reid knew about the possible collusion, then it goes to reason that Ryan and McConnell did as well. And they stonewalled and covered up for Trump.
But by far the most telling line of questioning of Brennan came from Republican water-boy Trey Gowdy who kept on pressing Brennan not on whether there was evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, as other Republicans had done, but whether there was any evidence of collusion by Trump himself. Brennan, as he had done repeatedly, answered that he collected intelligence and left it up to the FBI to determine what was evidence. But the emphasis by Gowdy solely on Trump himself shows us where we are going.
This line of questioning indicates that we have already reached the last line of defense for Trump. He himself began this defense in his press conference last week when he said, "There is no collusion - certainly myself and my campaign - but I can always speak for myself and the Russians - zero." I believe this will be the basis of Trump's defense going forward. Essentially he is saying that he himself did not collude with the Russians but had no idea or responsibility if members of his campaign were. Since he truly believed there was no collusion with Russia since he himself did not engage in it, then there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no intent to deceive. It's a small needle to thread, but that is already where Trump is at.
Rachel Maddow asked an interesting question last night. She pointed out that there is the collusion investigation and the investigation into financial crimes. They are part of the same investigation but she is unclear how they fit together. I think the answer is pretty clear. I don't think anyone in the Trump campaign really believed they would win. Flynn was in it to influence Trump to spout Russian propaganda and to keep the money flowing from his Russian and Turkish paymasters. Bannon and Conway were simply hired help for the Mercers and were happy to take their money. Manafort, like Flynn, could continue to keep his Russian money coming in. And Trump and Kushner could keep those "investments" coming from Russia too. As long as they questioned the relevance of NATO, attacked the integrity of the election, and weakened Hillary Clinton, the money would keep rolling in. Best of all, they would all still be powerful voices in the Republican party after the election, meaning that every one of their grifts could keep on giving.
The worst thing for everyone, except the Russians, was for Trump to actually win. Manafort was already in trouble, Flynn is fired and disgraced and facing years in jail, and Conway has utterly disgraced herself having to defend Trump's narcissistic, predatory behavior. Trump and Kushner now have all their businesses being examined with a fine-tooth comb. McConnell and Ryan started the cover-up last September. Trump enlisted his top White House aides to engage Burr and Nunes in continuing that cover-up. Sessions un-recused himself to help create a cover story for Comey's firing. Trump himself has tried to enlist Coats and Rogers in the cover-up and he has fired Yates and Comey when their investigations showed progress. In addition, there are the veiled threats against Yates and Comey and the message to Flynn to stay strong. The obstruction of justice is widespread and comprehensive at this point.
And now Trump is going to throw every one of his co-conspirators overboard with a strategy that absolves only himself. The real question is which one of his co-conspirators will turn against him first.
Yesterday, it was revealed Trump made another two attempts to obstruct Comey's FBI inquiry. Shortly after Comey revealed that there was an ongoing investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion in late March, Trump contacted both Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and director of the National Security Agency Mike Rogers and asked them to publicly deny that there was any evidence of collusion. Both declined the President's "request". In addition, Trump's senior advisers asked senior intelligence officials about the possibility of getting them to intervene with Comey to shut his investigation down.
This marks the sixth specific attempt that Trump has made to stymie Comey's investigation since he became President only four months ago. There was the dinner where Trump asked for Comey's loyalty and the private meeting where Trump asked Comey to "let this go". Both those meetings came immediately after the White House had received information about the expanding status of the Russian investigation, the first after the Sally Yates meeting and the second after Comey's announcement that collusion was part of the investigation. Then there was the actual firing of Yates and Comey. I could also add the attempt by Priebus to get Burr and Nunes, the heads of the intelligence committees, to push back on the story as well. And those are just the ones we currently know about.
In addition, we also heard from former CIA head John Brennan yesterday who testified that he saw intelligence last summer that "revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign". That intelligence was troubling enough for him to refer the matter to the FBI for a counter-intelligence investigation. That is, in fact, how Comey's investigation came to be.
This is an incredibly important revelation. Brennan is an experienced Washington insider with years in intelligence. He saw a pattern of conduct and contacts that was recognizable to him and disturbing enough to recommend a counter-intelligence operation by the FBI. This information must have been pretty compelling because Brennan would certainly realize just how explosive asking the FBI to begin an investigation of a presidential campaign a mere few months before the election would be. It would not be a step that Brennan would take lightly and without real consideration. Now, as we saw in the run-up to the Iraq war, intelligence is not real evidence in a legal sense and Brennan made that point repeatedly under Republican questioning. But it is evidence of a possibility.
Which brings us back to Trump's request to Coats and Rogers to publicly state there was no evidence of collusion. Based on what Brennan knew and what Coats and Rogers would now know in their current capacity, Trump was asking them to make a false statement. There was clearly enough evidence of possible collusion to convice Brennan and added to that is the Russian dossier, which has had numerous elements of it corroborated, and the remarkable synergy between Russian interests, timely WikiLeaks revelations, targeted Russian fake news, and the talking points and strategies of the Trump campaign.
In addition, Brennan's alert to the FBI makes it clear that possible collusion was part of the FBI investigation of the Russian hacking of the election from the very beginning. In September, the Obama administration was so concerned that it provided an intelligence briefing to the gang of eight in Congress, which would have included McConnell and Ryan. The purpose of that meeting was to get a bipartisan statement condemning the Russian hacking. McConnell specifically refused, saying the evidence was suspect and Ryan apparently dutifully went along. It seems entirely reasonable to think that the possibility that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia was part of that briefing. After all, Harry Reid pressed Brennan to release the damaging information he had about Russian hacking that the American people deserved to know just a few weeks later. If Reid knew about the possible collusion, then it goes to reason that Ryan and McConnell did as well. And they stonewalled and covered up for Trump.
But by far the most telling line of questioning of Brennan came from Republican water-boy Trey Gowdy who kept on pressing Brennan not on whether there was evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, as other Republicans had done, but whether there was any evidence of collusion by Trump himself. Brennan, as he had done repeatedly, answered that he collected intelligence and left it up to the FBI to determine what was evidence. But the emphasis by Gowdy solely on Trump himself shows us where we are going.
This line of questioning indicates that we have already reached the last line of defense for Trump. He himself began this defense in his press conference last week when he said, "There is no collusion - certainly myself and my campaign - but I can always speak for myself and the Russians - zero." I believe this will be the basis of Trump's defense going forward. Essentially he is saying that he himself did not collude with the Russians but had no idea or responsibility if members of his campaign were. Since he truly believed there was no collusion with Russia since he himself did not engage in it, then there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no intent to deceive. It's a small needle to thread, but that is already where Trump is at.
Rachel Maddow asked an interesting question last night. She pointed out that there is the collusion investigation and the investigation into financial crimes. They are part of the same investigation but she is unclear how they fit together. I think the answer is pretty clear. I don't think anyone in the Trump campaign really believed they would win. Flynn was in it to influence Trump to spout Russian propaganda and to keep the money flowing from his Russian and Turkish paymasters. Bannon and Conway were simply hired help for the Mercers and were happy to take their money. Manafort, like Flynn, could continue to keep his Russian money coming in. And Trump and Kushner could keep those "investments" coming from Russia too. As long as they questioned the relevance of NATO, attacked the integrity of the election, and weakened Hillary Clinton, the money would keep rolling in. Best of all, they would all still be powerful voices in the Republican party after the election, meaning that every one of their grifts could keep on giving.
The worst thing for everyone, except the Russians, was for Trump to actually win. Manafort was already in trouble, Flynn is fired and disgraced and facing years in jail, and Conway has utterly disgraced herself having to defend Trump's narcissistic, predatory behavior. Trump and Kushner now have all their businesses being examined with a fine-tooth comb. McConnell and Ryan started the cover-up last September. Trump enlisted his top White House aides to engage Burr and Nunes in continuing that cover-up. Sessions un-recused himself to help create a cover story for Comey's firing. Trump himself has tried to enlist Coats and Rogers in the cover-up and he has fired Yates and Comey when their investigations showed progress. In addition, there are the veiled threats against Yates and Comey and the message to Flynn to stay strong. The obstruction of justice is widespread and comprehensive at this point.
And now Trump is going to throw every one of his co-conspirators overboard with a strategy that absolves only himself. The real question is which one of his co-conspirators will turn against him first.