Tell Him

Leonard Pitts, Jr. lets loose on Donald Trump in his most recent op-ed, and it is a thing of beauty. Addressed "Dear Mr. So-Called President," Pitts opens his missive by telling Trump, "So let me explain to you how this works." And then proceeds to do precisely that.

The entire thing is worth your time to read, but his conclusion is particularly stellar.

Just who the hell do you think you are?

Meaning you and all the other trolls you have brought clambering up from under their bridges. Maybe you didn't notice, but this is the United States of America. Perhaps you've heard of it? Nation of laws, not of individuals? First Amendment? Freedom of the press? Any of that ringing a bell?

Let's be brutally clear here. If you were a smart guy with unimpeachable integrity and a good heart who was enacting wise policies for the betterment of all humankind, you'd still be subject to sharp scrutiny from news media, oversight from Congress, restraint by the judiciary — and public opinion.

And you, of course, are none of those things. I know you fetishize strength. I know your pal Vladimir would never stand still for reporters and judges yapping at him.

I know, too, that you're accustomed to being emperor of your own fiefdom. Must be nice. Your name on the wall, the paychecks, the side of the building. You tell people to make something happen, and it does. You yell at a problem, and it goes away. Nobody talks back. I can see how it would be hard to give that up.

But you did. You see, you're no longer an emperor, Mr. So-Called President. You're now what is called a "public servant" — in effect, an employee with 324 million bosses. And let me tell you something about those bosses. They're unruly and loud, long accustomed to speaking their minds without fear or fetter. And they believe power must always answer to the people. That's at the core of their identity.

Yet you and your coterie of cartoon autocrats think you're going to cow them into silence and compliance by ordering them to shut up and obey? Well, as a freeborn American, I can answer that in two syllables flat.

Hell no.
Hell no.

This, too, is one of the problems with the fantasy of a Great Businessman Running the Government Like a Business to Make America Great Again. The government is not a corporation—and the president is not a CEO.

Those sound like basically the same thing, but they're not. Not really. The former is about systems; the latter is about people.

We have this myth about how a successful CEO would axiomatically translate into a successful president, but the talents and temperaments that make successful CEOs are generally very different than those that make successful presidents.

Some of those things are nuanced differences, but one major difference is pretty damn straightforward: When you're the president, you don't get to choose how visible you are anymore.

Unlike CEOs—who, for the most part, can choose to be flashy, exhibitionist, reality-show celebs or to firmly decline to become a household name—the president is globally famous and stays famous every day as long as s/he holds the job, and pretty much for every day thereafter.

The fame part of it was no doubt of great appeal to Donald Trump. But only the adoration part of that fame. Not so much the scrutiny.

It's obvious that Trump doesn't like the relentless scrutiny. Which only makes him more crabby, erratic, indecisive, and compulsive, which in turn only invites more scrutiny. It's a vicious circle, from which there's no escape.

Except, of course, not having the job anymore.

This is what you signed up for, Trump. And if you don't like it, you're not going to solve it by telling us to STFU and go away.

The only option is for you to do that.

Open Wide...

Meanwhile, in NOM-Land

[content note: anti-LGBT bigotry]

The anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is having a big sad that Trump hasn't signed the leaked Executive Order yet that would grant individuals and organizations with "religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity" the special privilege to discriminate.

NOM's influence waned during the Obama years, but the group is currently encouraging its supporters to exert pressure on Trump to take a stand against "LGBT extremists."

So, that's that.

Open Wide...

Meanwhile...


[Image in tweet is a red-white-and-blue flyer reading: "We are going to put America back to work. We are going to put people before government.—Donald J. Trump."]

The fact that Trump thinks "people" and "government" are mutually exclusive concepts is revealing. As is the fact that the one person who won't get "back to work" is him.


Anyone else have a problem with that? I sure do.

Among the many consequences of an administration mired in incompetence, distracted by scandal, and dedicating what little focus they have to an aggressively indecent domestic agenda built around boogeymen, is that there's no one paying attention to actual threats to the nation.

In the case of a Russian spy ship, that inattention might be deliberate. But there are other threats out there, and there doesn't seem to be anyone who is taking them seriously, or even thinking about them at all.

This isn't mere speculation on my part.

[Content Note: Video may autoplay at link] Ryan Browne and Barbara Starr at CNN report that Army Gen. Raymond "Tony" Thomas, the head of US Special Operations Command, told a symposium in Maryland on Tuesday "that the US government is in 'unbelievable turmoil,' a situation that he suggested could undermine US efforts to fight adversaries such as ISIS."

He later said: "As a commander, I'm concerned our government be as stable as possible."

In a stark commentary on how deep that instability goes, Shane Harris and Carol E. Lee at the Wall Street Journal report: "U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter."

We don't have functional governance. It is totally unclear who is making decisions, and whether there is anyone in the entirety of the Trump administration with the decency and wisdom to make good ones.

Open Wide...

Not a Coincidence

Last night, Rep. Maxine Waters visited All In with Chris Hayes, to talk about Donald Trump, his administration, and their ties to Russia, and she showed once again that she is an incredibly effective messenger for the Democrats (and for We the People) on this issue. In three minutes, she made a concise, devastating case against Trump and his "Kremlin Clan." This is how it's done.

CHRIS HAYES: Joining me now Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California, and Congresswoman, I thought of you today for this reason—I want to play your reaction, January thirteenth, when you were briefed by James Comey in a classified briefing. Members of Congress walked out, yourself among them, flabbergasted, frustrated, upset. This was your reaction to that briefing; take a look.

[Cut to video of Waters at a podium. A female reporter offscreen asks her: "Can you tell us anything about the discussion in the briefing?" Waters responds: "No, it's classified, and we can't tell you anything. All I can tell you is: The FBI director has no credibility." She makes a stink-face, gestures dismissively, and abruptly departs. "That's it!" she exclaims as she walks away.]

HAYES (back in studio): I thought of you, because I read the Times story last night, and I thought, "Is that what she was talking about?"

WATERS: Well, ahh, let me just say I've been talking a lot about President Trump, and I've been talking about all of his allies. I've come to conclude that Trump has the Kremlin Clan surrounding him, and have been involved with him for a long time—and you named some of them this evening—starting with Flynn, of course, who just got caught in a lie, because he was on a telephone conversation with the Russian ambassador and he did talk about sanctions.

And of course there's Manafort, who was his campaign manager, and who certainly had a consultant agreement with the past president of the Ukraine, who was an ally of Putin's and controlled by Putin.

And then you go on further, and you take a look at Roger Stone. Roger Stone didn't tell you in this interview [Hayes had interviewed Stone right before Waters] that he did business in the Ukraine, and what you have to ask him is: Oh, were you tied into the former president, who is an ally of Putin, who was controlled by Putin?

And then of course there's Tillerson. Tillerson, who is now the Secretary of State, had a multi-billion dollar deal with Putin and the Kremlin to drill in the Arctic. And guess what? It was stopped dead in its tracks because of the sanctions. And so his major job, in my estimation, is to help get those sanctions lifted from Russia, so that they can proceed with this oil deal.

So whether we're talking about any of them, or Wilbur Ross, or Carter Page, these are all people with ties that are documented with Russia and the Kremlin.

And so I have named them: Trump's Kremlin Clan. Because how is it that all of them, with this background and with these connections, end up in the same administration?!

I tell you: There's more to be learned about it. I believe there's been collusion; they were involved in his campaign and we've got to dig; these investigations have got to show the connection and prove that collusion. Because, as for me, I think it leads to impeachment, and I believe that, and that's what I'm paying attention to.

HAYES: All right. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, thank you for joining me tonight. I appreciate it.
Emphasis mine. Waters not only makes the case, but asks the question that every member of Congress and every member of the media should be asking: How did all of them end up in the same administration? Are we really meant to believe that's a coincidence?

It's all just a big coincidence that a bunch of white men with ties to Russia ended up in the White House together after Russia interfered in the election, huh?

Rep. Maxine Waters ain't buying it. And neither am I.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a yellow couch

Hosted by a yellow sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Have you ever been horseback-riding? If so, is it something you enjoy? If not, is it something you'd like to try?

Open Wide...

The Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by typos.

Recommended Reading:

The Doubleclicks: Women Know Math

Mia: [Content Note: Misogynoir] On Adele, Beyoncé, and Solidarity

Marena: [CN: Racism] Showing Up for Us in Meaningful Ways

stavvers: [CN: Sexual assault; Islamophobia] If the New Year Sexual Assaults Were Made Up, It Reveals Ugly Truths About What White Men Believe

Angry Asian Man: [CN: Racism; appropriation] Yellowface Is a Really Awful Way to Celebrate "Diversity"

Monica: Laverne Talks Trans Rights on Stephen Colbert's Show

Alex: Why These "Revolutionary" '80s Gadgets Totally Failed

Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!

Open Wide...

What Are the Senate Democrats Doing? The Truth Is, I'm Not Sure—But I'd Like to Know

This is troubling:

Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday rejected a push by some of their members to appoint an independent commission to investigate the charges that people linked to Donald Trump — including ousted national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — had frequent contacts with Russia during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.

Instead, Democrats largely agreed to handle the inquiry of Trump officials' links to Russia inside the Senate — specifically, through an investigation started by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The decision was made at a Democratic conference meeting Wednesday morning hastily called by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). Schumer aimed to get his colleagues on the same page following a fresh report from the New York Times that Trump campaign aides spoke frequently with Russian intelligence operatives during the campaign.

...For now, Democrats seem to agree that the best approach to investigating President Trump lies with lawmakers instead of an independent entity of some sort.
So, first of all, the transcript of Schumer's remarks today (which is below) doesn't explicitly preclude Senate Democrats advocating for bipartisan, independent investigations at some point. He did not call for those—which is unfortunate, given that Senate committee investigations leave majority (GOP) members in charge of the investigation, including decisions like whether their conclusions are even made available to the public.

But he didn't definitively rule them out, either. Thus, the story is somewhat misleading.

That said, it's still troubling that Senate Democrats aren't enthusiastically calling for an independent investigation, or a special investigation, or a select committee.

I don't know what Schumer and his colleagues know, so there could be a reason for that.

One possibility is that Senate Democrats have agreed to this charade in exchange for Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the federal investigations.

But even if that is the calculation, I'm hardly sure it's a wise one, given that Donald Trump will still have his hands in the Department of Justice, irrespective of whether Sessions recuses himself.

Another possibility is that Senate Republicans have made clear that if Democrats push for an independent investigation, they will appoint partisan prosecutors, leaving Senate Democrats with a better chance of retaining some modicum of influence in a Senate committee investigation.

Recall that Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, when first presented with evidence of Russian interference in September, not only questioned the veracity of the intelligence, but told the Obama administration "that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics."

McConnell threatened Obama over this very subject; I would not put it past him to be doing the same thing to Schumer now.

But I don't know. I'm honestly not sure what the Senate Democrats are doing, or why.

I know, from Schumer's remarks, that they're taking this seriously:
This morning, I called together an emergency meeting of our caucus to discuss everything that has transpired in the last several days. General Flynn's resignation, the outright lies coming from him, this administration, and the reports of constant contact between the top officials in the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence are chilling. I have been in Congress for a long time and I've never, ever seen anything like this. These reports and revelations should not pit the two parties against one another—they should unite the parties in pursuit of the full truth. We are Americans before we are Democrats or Republicans. Nothing less than our system of checks and balances, democratic institutions, the rule of law, and our national security is at stake.

Senate Democrats are committed to not allowing this issue to become a political, partisan exercise. We will be fact-based, we will be measured, we will be thorough.

During our caucus meeting, we discussed the two tracks on which we must seek the truth. The first is in Congress.

Senator Warner, our ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is committed to using every resource in that committee to seek the truth. His committee will take the lead, but it will not be the only committee that looks into ties between the Trump campaign, transition, or administration, and Russia. These committee investigations must be bipartisan, they must have access to all intelligence, officials, transcripts, and documents that they need to answer critical questions and they must be permitted to make their findings public to the maximum extent possible.

Second, law enforcement must also get to the bottom of everything that may have transpired here.

In order to allow these two critical and important tracks to move forward, today the Senate Democrats are asking for three specific things. First, Senator Sessions must follow Department of Justice guidance and recuse himself. When the FBI looks into a matter, they do so right alongside prosecutors from the Justice Department.

Those prosecutors should not be reporting to the first Senator who endorsed Donald Trump's campaign, who served on the same campaign committee as Michael Flynn and who nominated Donald Trump at the Republican Convention.

The Justice Department's own guidelines demand that Attorney General Sessions remove himself from this matter immediately. If he does not, the investigation will remain jaundiced and the American people will doubt the credibility of its findings.

If this trail leads to the Oval Office, the person investigating that trail should not be the same person who helped put President Trump there—end of story.

Second, we will make clear that we expect all records from administration, transition and campaign officials be preserved. There is real concern that administration, transition and campaign officials may try to cover up ties to Russia by deleting e-mails, texts and other records that could shine a light on those connections. These records are likely to be the subject of these Congressional investigations and must be preserved.

And third, we're demanding that campaign and transition officials be made available to testify in public, under oath on these issues.

Paul Manafort and General Flynn have both been reported to have constant contact with Russian intelligence officials. They must testify and anyone else involved in this must be made available to testify, as well. Our caucus is united in these three requests and we hope and expect our Republican colleagues to join in these calls, as well.

The gravity and seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated. Our security is at risk. Our system of checks and balances and rule of law is at risk. This cannot be a time for partisan squabbles. Instead, it must be a time when both parties come together to protect the rule of law, the system of checks and balances and the security of the American people.
The Senate Democrats want investigations. Which is something. It just may not be enough.

The problem is that investigations take time. There's very little urgency to investigations, especially thorough ones.

The other problem is that investigations are all the Democrats are constitutionally empowered to do.

But in this moment, with this administration, it all just feels a little formulaic. We are facing something extraordinary, and it doesn't seem sufficient to try to address it with Business as Usual.

I feel a little bit like Nic Cage shouting about how he needs to steal the Constitution to save it, but I increasingly feel like it's time to start breaking some rules in order to save the republic.

Open Wide...

A Glimpse Into Something Far Worse

Reflecting on their investigation of Watergate in their book All the President's Men, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein wrote:

"The Watergate that we wrote about in the Washington Post from 1972 to 1974 is not Watergate as we know it today. It was only a glimpse into something far worse. By the time he was forced to resign, Nixon had turned his White House, to a remarkable extent, into a criminal enterprise."
They also wrote of the common saying about Watergate, "the cover-up was worse than the crime," and how that minimizes the potential that Nixon's activities had to destroy the political system. After all, Watergate wasn't "just" about theft and then having lied about it. Sure, the tools used were theft, wire-tapping, dishonesty, and cover-ups. But these tools were put in service toward a greater end of interfering with the integrity of the electoral process. It is against that end, we must be most vigilant. They continue:
"At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law."
Not even a month into holding office, we have seen what kind of president Trump will be.

My framework for understanding him is to read his constant accusations on Twitter as admissions of his own guilt or future plans. First, the claims that Hillary Clinton was "rigging" the election against him, of course. But now, we see claims of massive voter fraud, which I interpret as a promise to massively restrict voting rights. He claims that established media platforms are "failing" and "fake news," which I interpret to mean that his preference is for pro-Trump propaganda to dominate. That "crooked" was his favored moniker for the woman who earned 3 million more votes than him in the 2016 Election, I interpret to mean he himself is hiding very big things.

Big things not just related to his corporate interests but also, for instance, Russia's involvement in Election 2016. Seeing what we've seen already, it's hard to imagine the Constitution, free elections, and the rule of law withstanding four years of a Trump administration.

We are in the middle of the storm and don't yet have the benefit of hindsight. As we've now learned that his own campaign aides were in contact with Russian intelligence before the election and his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned this week for having potentially-illegal contacts with the Russian ambassador to the US, I suspect we're getting just a small glimpse of just how big this storm is.

I wrote previously of the media's obsession with reporting on "Hillary's emails" while also uncritically reporting on information that we now know was stolen by Russian agents:
"...[F]or 18 months we lived in an absurd moment in time where the media gave more coverage and portrayed as more scandalous a hypothetical risk of national harm due to security breach, than its own complicity in an actual, ongoing national harm that was occurring due to actual security breaches and foreign interference.

That's right: The US media spent 600 straight days covering Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server from which there is no evidence of hacking, under the ostensible reasoning that it was a vital matter of national concern. At the same time, many of these same media sources were effectively serving as, in the Times own words, 'a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence' by uncritically citing the stolen DNC and Podesta emails."
Many in the media were complicit in enabling the situation in which we've found ourselves. It is questionable as to the extent Republicans, many of whom seem to think any means justifies their regressive policy ends, will seek to thoroughly investigate their leader's connections to Russia.

At the same time, another lesson from Watergate is that Republicans who put country before party played an important role in bringing information to light. It is, then, incumbent upon such Republicans, Democrats, and members of the media to ask, find out, and report to the public:

What did Trump know? When did he know it? What did he personally order to be done? Who else was involved?

American democracy demands it.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Olivia the White Farm Cat sleeping in a red chair
Cat nap.

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Open Wide...

We Resist: Day 27

a black bar with the word RESIST in white text

One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.

So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Here are some things I've read today:

Naturally, Donald Trump has tweeted about the Flynn resignation. In one tweet, he wrote: "This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton's losing campaign." In another: "The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great!"

He also said during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—which was also frightening for many other reasons—that Flynn was treated unfairly by the media.

I literally wrote just yesterday: "Another possibility, of course, is that Trump wants to be able to retain the right to say that the media forced Flynn out with a witchhunt, so his supporters, who are standing by and vociferously defending Flynn, don't turn on him." He is so predictable. And so are his supporters. I knew they would stand by Flynn because Flynn, with his rank Islamophobia, retweeted anti-Semitism, and open meeting with Austria's white supremacist Freedom Party leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, is a most beloved figure of Trump's "alt-right" supporter base. I don't have a crystal ball; I just pay attention.

Eric Lichtblau at the New York Times: Jeff Sessions Resists Pressure to Remove Himself in Russia Inquiries. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions faced growing pressure on Tuesday to remove himself from any role in investigating President Trump’s aides and their relationship with Russia, but advisers to Mr. Sessions said he saw no need to do so. ...'This is a dangerous area, and one where the attorney general ought to proceed with caution,' [Richard Ben-Veniste, a prominent Democratic lawyer who worked on the Watergate special counsel's investigation] said. Any suggestion that Mr. Sessions was allowing politics to enter into the investigation 'would be a tremendous blow to his credibility,' he added." Such as it is.

Thomas E. Ricks at Foreign Policy: Robert Harward Plans a Housecleaning of Trump's National Security Council Staff. "Donald Trump offered the job of national security advisor to retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward on Monday night, and was a bit surprised when Harward responded by saying he needed a couple of days to think it over. If, as expected, Harward accepts the job today, he is likely to bring in his own team, from deputy on down, with a focus on national security types with some experience under their belts." And then the leaks end. Which is not necessarily a good thing, in this case, given everything that's happening.

Andy Towle at Towleroad: 20 House Dems: Flynn Needs to Testify Before House Foreign Affairs Committee. "Twenty House Democrats led by Rep. David Cicilline have called for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to investigate National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's affairs with Russia in a letter to Chairman Ed Royce. Read the letter [pdf] HERE."

Sherrilyn Ifill at the Washington Post: The President Lays the Groundwork for a Nationwide Voter Intimidation Program. "[T]he president and his team's peculiar repetition of claims about voter fraud must be recognized for what it is: They are laying the groundwork for forthcoming efforts. We should prepare for the president to issue a sweeping executive order requiring a nationwide investigation of alleged voter fraud. The justification for it will be as unmoored from facts, as was the basis for the seven Muslim-majority countries selected for the president's travel ban. And the results will be just as, if not more, pernicious. A presidential command to investigate the existence of a phenomenon that has been demonstrated not to exist can accomplish only one thing—a nationwide system of voter intimidation authorized at the highest levels of government."

Dan Levine and Kristina Cooke at Reuters: Mexican 'DREAMer' Nabbed in Immigrant Crackdown. "The man's lawyers say this could be the first time under U.S. President Donald Trump that a person covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, has been taken into immigration custody. The program was established in 2012 by Democratic President Barack Obama to allow those brought to the country while young to attend school and work. Ethan Dettmer, a partner in the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and one of the lawyers representing the man, Daniel Ramirez Medina, said he is not aware of any other DACA recipient who has been arrested." The ICE spokesperson justified the arrest by saying Ramirez is a "self-admitted gang member" and that he was taken "into custody based on his admitted gang affiliation and risk to public safety." But Ramirez denies being in a gang and ICE "declined to elaborate further on how ICE established the man was a member of a gang." Chilling.

(Remember what I wrote about "protection" of white people being used to justify abhorrent white supremacist policy? That's what I mean. Right there.)

Amanda Holpuch at The Guardian: Refugees Seeking Urgent Medical Care Imperiled by Immigration Crackdown. "On 27 January, Trump banned refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US. People who were banned from entering the US included dozens of patients who had been screened and were set to receive urgent medical care at the country's top hospitals. ...[A]n appellate court blocked enforcement of the order last week. That court's decision may have saved lives." But Trump's minions are reportedly rewriting the executive order, so this isn't yet over, unfortunately.

Margaret Hartmann at New York Magazine: Omarosa Manigault Produces Secret Recording of White House Dispute With Journalist. "April Ryan, American Urban Radio Networks' White House correspondent, claims Omarosa Manigault, a White House communications official, 'physically intimidated' her last week during an argument just outside the Oval Office. Ryan said Manigault also mentioned that the White House keeps dossiers of negative information about Ryan and several other African-American journalists. On Tuesday, Manigault tried to disprove these allegations by sharing parts of a recording of the dispute with reporters. ...Rather than resolving the matter, the recording raised new questions about how it was obtained. 'I didn't know she was taping it,' Ryan said. 'This is about her trying to smear my name. This is freaking Nixonian.'"

Hannah Devlin at The Guardian: Trump's Likely Science Adviser Calls Climate Scientists 'Glassy-Eyed Cult'. "Happer also supports a controversial crackdown on the freedom of federal agency scientists to speak out about their findings, arguing that mixed messages on issues such as whether butter or margarine is healthier, have led to people disregarding all public health information."

Nicole Knight at Rewire: ACA Repeal Would Have Outsized Impact on Women of Color. "Of the nearly 8 million women at risk of losing insurance coverage under a GOP-led repeal of the ACA, two-thirds are women of color, an analysis released Tuesday suggests. The state-by-state analysis by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) found the ACA's repeal would most imperil the coverage of women enrolled in Medicaid, including working women insured through Medicaid and women of color. The Republican repeal effort would hurt women across partisan lines, jeopardizing women's insurance coverage in red and blue states alike."

What have you been reading that we need to resist today?

Open Wide...

Discussion Thread: Self-Care

What are you doing to do to take care of yourself today, or in the near future, as soon as you can?

If you are someone who has a hard time engaging in self-care, or figuring out easy, fast, and/or inexpensive ways to treat yourself, and you would like to solicit suggestions, please feel welcome. And, as always, no one should offer advice unless it is solicited.

Open Wide...

Don't Buy Mike Pence's Innocent Act

The official explanation for why Donald Trump asked Michael Flynn to resign (or merely accepted his resignation, depending on who's telling the story) is that Flynn lied to Vice-President Mike Pence about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which is why Pence then went on television to state with certitude: "They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."

Flynn's lie to Pence, which caused Pence's very public "misstatement," is now being cited as the reason underwriting the "erosion of trust" that prompted Trump to ask for Flynn's resignation.

Central to this story is the idea that Pence only made that claim because he'd been misled by Flynn. Pence's alleged innocence has been bolstered by stories, the source for which is Pence's spokesperson, about how Pence only found out he'd been misled when he read it in the Washington Post on February 9, even though "Trump was first informed about the Justice Department's concerns regarding Flynn on Jan. 26."


Indeed, this wholesale buy-in to Pence's incredible claim of innocence is contingent on believing a number of extraordinary things.

1. That Pence was wildly out of the loop.


Pence has emerged as one of the most powerful veeps in the nation's history. He has been acting as the liaison between the White House and the Republican Congressional Caucus to begin enacting a radical conservative agenda, staring with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

On January 26, the very day that Trump was informed about Flynn, Pence was profiled by USA Today as leading the charge on domestic policy: "Pence tells Congress to 'buckle up' and get ready to enact major change."

That is, quite simply, not a vice-president who's been pushed out and left in the dark.

2. That Pence made a definitive statement about a vital national security concern based only on Flynn's word.

What we are meant to believe is that Pence went on national television and made a definitive statement about whether Flynn discussed sanctions with a Russian official, based exclusively on Flynn's word and nothing else.

Not only that does that seem like a very foolish move for a seasoned politician who has been through his share of controversies, but it also requires us to believe that, before speaking on such an explosive topic on behalf of the administration, he didn't discuss his talking points with anyone else in the administration, except for one person who had reason to lie.

I've been writing about Pence for many years, and I can tell you that there a lot of deplorable things about him, but being stupid and reckless are not among them.

3. That Flynn lied even though, according to the Trump administration, he had nothing to lie about.

During the White House press briefing yesterday, Sean Spicer repeated over and over that Flynn's discussion about sanctions with Kislyak was not illegal. Flynn was asked for his resignation, Spicer insisted, not because he did anything wrong, but because of the "erosion of trust" after lying to Pence.

But: If Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on that call, then why would he lie about it to Pence in the first place? (The point is: Maybe he didn't.)

4. That Pence hasn't been reading the news for months.

For us to believe that Pence was truly "in the dark" and completely innocent of any knowledge that Flynn had misled him, we also have to believe that Pence hasn't read a shred of news for months. Until he happened to pick up the WaPo on Feb. 9.

Reports of Flynn's ties to Russia have also been circulating for months. We are also meant to believe that Pence has entirely missed reports that Flynn has a long relationship with Putin, including interviews (example) in which Flynn boasts about his ties to Russia.

Either we have to believe Pence missed all of that, or believe that Pence knew it yet inexplicably took Flynn at his word when he said he had not spoken to Kislyak about sanctions.

5. That Pence hasn't used precisely this maneuver before.

While Governor of Indiana, Pence used the old "had no knowledge" chestnut to distance himself from scandal. And it was just as absurd then as it is now.

Perhaps most famously, Pence claimed, exactly as he is now, that he learned from the press about the proposal for a state-run and taxpayer-funded news (propaganda) outlet: "I frankly learned about the memo from press reports late Monday."

He made this incredible claim despite the fact that two employees had already been hired; that "a governance board of communications directors" had been established; that a draft story had already been circulated; and that Pence himself had tweeted about it.

And he claimed that he learned about it from the media, just as he is claiming now.

This is his go-to move to try to disassociate himself from troubling stories that go public via leaks. He feigns ignorance, because it's preferable to look like he's out of the loop than intractably corrupt.

Don't believe him for a second. And urge the corporate media to give Pence the scrutiny he deserves, instead of letting him get away with the wide-eyed innocent routine. Again.

Open Wide...

The Latest on Trump and Russia

Last night, another piece of reporting sourced from leaking intelligence officials that casts further suspicion on the Trump administration and its fealty to this nation: Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo at the New York times with the blunt headline "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence."

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time that they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said.

...The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside of the intelligence services, the officials said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.

The officials said that one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump's campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.

The call logs and intercepted communications are part of a larger trove of information that the F.B.I. is sifting through as it investigates the links between Mr. Trump's associates and the Russian government, as well as the D.N.C. hack, according to federal law enforcement officials. As part of its inquiry, the F.B.I. has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews, the officials said.

...The National Security Agency, which monitors the communications of foreign intelligence services, initially captured the communications between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russians as part of routine foreign surveillance. After that, the F.B.I. asked the N.S.A. to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls, and to search through troves of previous intercepted communications that had not been analyzed.
That Trump's campaign was in contact with the Russians was painfully obvious to anyone paying attention, given that Donald Trump himself stood at a podium in July and publicly invited the Russians to hack the U.S. government, and that two days after the election, Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei A. Ryabkov publicly said there had been contacts with Trump's team throughout the campaign. But it's still very important to have this confirmation.

A few observations:

1. If you've been paying attention to the anonymous sources for these articles, they are almost always noted to be, as here, "current and former American officials." We are reaching a tipping point for a lot of reasons, one of which is that the former (Obama era) officials are only aware of what happened to a certain point in time. We're quickly closing in on the end of their visibility of what the Trump campaign and administration has done, and, for insight into what happened after that, we're going to have to rely exclusively on officials in the Trump administration, who are constantly being purged and replaced with Trump's "own people." This creates profound urgency to take this seriously now.

2. Note that the FBI investigation was going on long before Election Day. FBI Director James Comey felt it was necessary and right (wrong and wrong) to make public a bullshit and ultimately irrelevant investigation into "Hillary Clinton's emails" (because of a laptop owned by Huma Abedin, uncovered in an investigation of Anthony Weiner), but did not feel obliged to make public that Trump's campaign was under investigation for collusion with a foreign government.

3. It's critical to understand that Russia's meddling wasn't just intended to try to install Trump as a puppet, but also to seek vengeance on Hillary Clinton:
When mass protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin erupted in Moscow in December 2011, Putin made clear who he thought was really behind them: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

With the protesters accusing Putin of having rigged recent elections, the Russian leader pointed an angry finger at Clinton, who had issued a statement sharply critical of the voting results. "She said they were dishonest and unfair," Putin fumed in public remarks, saying that Clinton gave "a signal" to demonstrators working "with the support of the U.S. State Department" to undermine his power. "We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our internal affairs," Putin declared.
That history is important—because it explains why Putin orchestrated election interference on behalf of Clinton's opponent, even if Trump himself wasn't aware of it. (He was aware of it.)

It matters that Russia's election subversion was partly vengeance against Clinton for her defense of democracy; for doing her job and doing it well. And it matters that this part of the history is being left out of the narrative. It matters for a number of reasons, not least of which is because concealing Putin's personal vendetta against Clinton leaves space for Trump defenders to claim that there was "no reason" for Russian intervention or collusion.

4. Honestly, between Russian interference in the election, Russian collusion by one campaign, and Comey's influence, we legit need a do-over. The election was illegitimate. The president is illegitimate. His entire administration is illegitimate. We are three weeks in. This isn't going to get better. At this point the only solution is a do-over and no one will be brave enough to say so. We need a special election. Period.

It's never going to happen, unfortunately, but it should. Instead, we are going to be okay with unprecedented forces conspiring in the most egregious, anti-democratic, treasonous ways to stop a woman from becoming president.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a red couch

Hosted by a red sofa. Have a seat and chat.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

When you go to bed in the evening (or whatever time of day for your longest sleep period), do you head to bed a bit before you try to fall asleep and do some reading or internet surfing or some other bedtime activity, or do you stay out of bed until the last minute and then collapse into your bed, turn out the lights, and head directly for sleepytown?

Open Wide...

There's a Lot Going on, But...

So, I'm reading this Washington Post piece by Ashley Parker and Philip Rucker, "Upheaval is now standard operating procedure inside the White House," and I come to this paragraph:

Staffers buzz privately about who is up and who is down, with many eagerly gossiping about which poor colleague gets an unflattering portrayal on NBC's "Saturday Night Live." For the past two weeks, it has been White House press secretary Sean Spicer. But aides said Trump was especially upset by a sketch that cast White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon as the Grim Reaper manipulating the president — who was ultimately relegated to a miniature desk, playing dolefully with an expandable toy.
All I can think is: Is there not a single person in Trump's inner circle of sycophants who can get him to stop watching SNL?

I know there's a lot going on, and this is hardly the most pressing news, but this is a serious question.

It is worrying that there isn't a single person who can tear him away from a comedy show that drives him bananas. It speaks to his receptiveness, or cavernous lack thereof, to advice.

Which is going to be a very big problem during a national crisis.

Especially with a president who doesn't know the first fucking thing about the job.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."—Republican Senator Rand Paul, on the usefulness of investigating former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's ties to Russia and possible illegal behavior, when there are so many other important things to do, like kill people by stealing their access to healthcare.

The Republican Party, friends.

Open Wide...

More Bad News for Flynn (and Trump)

Adam Goldman, Matt Apuzzo, and Michael S. Schmidt at the New York Times: F.B.I. Interviewed Flynn in Trump's First Days in Office, Officials Say. (Emphasis mine.)

F.B.I. agents interviewed Michael T. Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, current and former officials said on Tuesday.

The interview raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job. If he was not entirely honest with the F.B.I., it could expose Mr. Flynn to a felony charge. President Trump asked for Mr. Flynn's resignation on Monday night.

While it is not clear what he said in his F.B.I. interview, Mr. Flynn maintained publicly for more than a week that his conversations with the ambassador were innocuous and did not involve Russian sanctions, something now known to be false.

Shortly after the F.B.I. interview, on Jan. 26, the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, told the White House that Mr. Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of inconsistencies between what he had said publicly and what intelligence officials knew to be true.
Sally Yates, as you may recall, was fired soon thereafter.

Presumably, Flynn was under oath when he spoke to the FBI; if he lied to them, he could face perjury charges. And Flynn doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who goes down without taking people down with him.

That makes him dangerous—and it certainly makes the White House nervous, which is dangerous, because this lot clearly don't make good decisions under the best of circumstances.

[H/T to Aphra_Behn for the NYT article.]

* * *

Earlier today, I wrote about how angry I am (and will always be, forever and ever amen) about how Hillary Clinton's preparedness and competence were treated with contempt during the campaign.

Given this latest news about Flynn, I also want to call back how, during the campaign, Donald Trump criticized U.S. military generals over and over, and constantly shouted about how he would have the BEST generals.


And then, there is this—General Michael Flynn's appearance at the Republican National Convention:

FLYNN: We do not need a reckless president who believes she is above the law! [The crowd cheers and applauds; they chant "Lock her up! Lock her up!"] Lock her up! That's right. Yeah, that's right—lock her up! I'm gonna tell ya what—it's unbelievable. It's unbelievable. [The crowd continues to chant, as Flynn nods approvingly.] Yeah, I use—I use hashtag Never Hillary. That's what I use.

I have called on Hillary Clinton— I have called on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race, because she—she—put our nation's security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private email server. [Audience cheers and chants.] Lock her up! Lock her up! You guys are good. Damn right. Exactly right. There's nothing wrong with that.

And you know why? And you know why? You know why we're saying that? We're saying that because if I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth—a tenth!—of what she did, I would be in jail today.

So, so: Crooked Hillary Clinton, leave this race now. [Audience cheers and chants.] She needs to go.
Well, sir: Hillary Clinton did not do anything criminal. At all. I daresay that you have done well more than "a tenth" of what Clinton did.

This is the campaign they ran against her. It was always a campaign of projection by the crookedest, most reckless vandals who have ever petitioned to lead this nation.

Which should be abundantly clear by this point, if it weren't already.

Open Wide...

Inspiring Acts of Resistance

image of stormclouds over a field of flowers, to which I've added text reading: RESISTANCE IS FERTILE
Since there is so much to resist every day, here is a thread in which we can talk about the things we're seeing other people doing—or the things we're doing ourselves—as both inspiration, suggestion, and a bulwark against despair.

Share things you have seen that moved you, or actions you are taking. Please also feel welcome and encouraged to share links to Twitter users and/or news sites engaged in resistance that you recommend following.

Today, I'll highlight the emergent Sanctuary Restaurants movement, which is "a joint project of the Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United and Presente.org."
* We believe that diversity makes us stronger; there is a place at the table of everyone,

* We are committed to creating affirming and safe environments in our restaurants for all,

* We proudly comply with all laws,

* We proudly welcome the public into our affirming spaces by prominently displaying the "SANCTUARY RESTAURANTS: A Place At the Table for Everyone" sign or decal,

* We pledge to support each other and to workers, customers, and restaurant owners by joining this peer network, and

* We stand with diverse communities to help protect their liberties, dignities, and freedoms.
Restaurants disproportionately employ people from many of the communities being directly targeted by the Trump administration, so supporting restaurants who will support those workers is a small but important act of resistance.

Open Wide...