February 3, 2018: Witch Hunt, Down the Rabbit Hole, America Be Damned

So this is what a partisan witch hunt looks like” opined the editorial board of “The New York Times” as the paper reviewed the case against the FBI and the Department of Justice as 'summarized' by tRUMP stooge Devin Nunes. The paper continued:

“In a demonstration of unbridled self-interest and bottomless bad faith, the Trump White House and its Republican minions in Congress are on the cusp of releasing (the document has since been released) a 'memo' that purports to document the biggest political scandal since Watergate. To pull it off, they are undermining the credibility of the law enforcement community that Republicans once defended so ardently, on the noble-sounding claim that the American public must know the truth.

Don't fall for it. 

Reports suggest that the three and a half page document—produced by the staff of Representative Devin Nunes (R-White House), who somehow still leads the House Intelligence Committee despite his own record of shilling for President Trump, and who is supposed to be recused from these matters—has nothing to do with truth or accountability. Rather, it appears to be misleading propaganda from people who are terrified by the Russian investigation and determined to derail it by any means necessary.” (1)

Russian Affiliated Television (R.A.T.), otherwise known as FOX News has been trumpeting this fraud for two weeks, claiming that it will show untoward bias by the law enforcement agencies and bring the whole investigation crashing down; some panelists and hosts going so far as to suggest that Mueller and his team will be led off, amid the uproar, in chains.

First, the “Times” is quick to suggest that the so-called “Steele Dossier” is not the “Holy Grail” of these investigations. Indeed, it was suspicious contacts between George Papadopoulos and the Russians, reported by an Australian intelligence source earlier in the year that first activated the investigation, a point buried deep in the report, indeed mentioned in passing in the last paragraph. By the time Steele contacted his sources at the FBI and CIA, it was treated as information that only confirmed what the government was hearing from not only the Australians but several other foreign intelligence services. Indeed, the “Times” underscored this by pointing out that Carter Page, another suspicious character in the tRUMP campaign also had dubious Russian ties and had been under surveillance since 2013. (2)

The “Times” editorial board, as well as several intelligence professionals reporting on national television point out that these FISA (Foreign Information Surveillance Act) warrants require reams of documentary and other evidence, involve dozens of agents, analysts, and prosecutors, and authorization to “wiretap” must be renewed every 90 days. In the case of Carter Page, the FISA warrants were renewed at least three times.

Finally, to assume bias is to assume that “investigators were out to fool a federal judge (showing) a profound ignorance of how the intelligence courts actual work and the degree of vetting that precedes every warrant application.” To contend that there is a conspiracy one would require “the involvement of at least a dozen agents and prosecutors, a corrupt or incompetent federal judge, and the director of the F.B.I.--all working in concert to undermine Donald Trump.” (3)

“You could call it a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, only there's no real theory behind it. Instead, there's a mad scramble to set off this latest smoke bomb, despite pleas to not do so from, among other people, Mr. Trump's hand-picked F.B.I. director, Christopher Wray.” After Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein failed to convince the White House to stop its release “the bureau released a highly unusual statement expressing 'grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy”'. In the words of “The Times” editors, referring to tRUMP's minions in Congress, “this shows how far down the rabbit hole they've gone”. (4)

“It would be nice to treat Mr. Trump, Mr. Nunes and their cohort as the junior high school pranksters they resemble, but what they're doing—cynically undermining the nation's trust in law enforcement, fostering an environment of permanent suspicion and subterfuge—is far more dangerous.” (5)

“The question”, asked “The Times”, “is whether there are any adults left in the G.O.P.” (6) Nothing, it should be made clear, is done by Nunes and his cohorts without the express consent of not only the Rescumlican majority of his committee but the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. It's all about winning, concluded “The Times”, America be damned”.

"An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh".

Impeach and Imprison

________

1. Editorial. “The Republican Plot Against the F.B.I., “The New York Times”, Friday, February 2, 2018. page A20
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. ibid.

January 20, 2018: Piss in Your Fireplace, Numerous Red Flags, Defiling our Space

“Tourists talking about the madhouse

talking about the ear

the madman hangs in fancy homes

they wouldn't let him near!

He'd piss in their fireplace!

He'd drag them through Turbulent Indigo”

----Joni Mitchell “Turbulent Indigo” (1)

We were told that he would piss in our fireplace and drag us through turbulent indigo. The paper and the reporters who know him best, “The New York Times”, warned about the madman who hangs in fancy homes, and they weren't singing about Vincent Van Gogh.

Normally the editorial board of the “Times”, fills a full two columns on its editorial page opining on two or three issues. But on Monday, September 26, 2016 (2) the editors took a full two columns comprising two thirds of the editorial page in an essay entitled “Why He Should Not Be President”, and featuring a photograph of a sober tRUMP staring blankly off into space.

Citing their years of chronicling tRUMP's unlikely rise to prominence in Manhattan, and his “improbable” run for president culminating at that time with the nomination of the Rescumlican Party, the editorial board issued a clear warning about what other publications—the Cincinnati

Enquirer and the Nation magazine among them—openly called a “clear and present danger”.

“From the moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump's views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and whims” (3)

The Times tore into how tRUMP was selling himself and why he couldn't be believed. A financial wizard? The editors cited his “record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University” (4) which his biographer David Cay Johnston has pointed out requires sanction from the state of New York, something the state had pointedly not done. About his tax returns, the Times opined that disclosure “would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags” citing his ubiquitous use of loopholes, years of paying no taxes at all, and “notably (tapping) $258,000. in donor's money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to the Washington Post” (5).

A straight talker? The “Times” editors point to his vacuous claim that he had a plan to defeat ISIS, despite having no experience in national security. Borrowing a page from Richard Nixon's famous 'secret plan to end the war in Viet Nam' here was tRUMP bobbing and weaving, steadfastly insisting that he had a plan but that he didn't want to reveal it “ludicrously” insisting “he must not tip off the enemy”. (6) Then there was “the shameful 'birther' campaign against President Obama's legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy” (7)

“Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight- hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trum has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would 'loosen' libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him” (8).

An expert negotiator? The editors were far from sanguine:

“His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump's debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser's estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for—only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.” (9)

His questioning of NATO would “present a major diplomatic and security challenge as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Then there were the threats of pulling out of our agreements with Iran and with the rest of the world on climate change.

Is this the “change agent for the nation and the world?” That is the question, opined the “Times” facing the electorate. Did we really want to run up deficits in order to cut taxes for billionaires? Did we really want to savage our new national health insurance program? Do we really want to address gun violence by arming “citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive 'shootouts' with gunmen”?

Concluding, the editors of the “Times” summed up what confronted the country as the election approached:

“Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician; bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?” (10)

The answer to the question was declared in the headline. Of course not. This by the newspaper that covered him most and knows him best. They know this carnival barker for what he is and know him to be a clear and present danger. The Times was not alone. Caesar Disgustus has every reason to rail against the 'mainstream' media for Disgustus earned the editorial endorsement of not a single big city newspaper in the United States. Those that cover politics, and those that have been reporting on the life and times of one Donald J. tRUMP, know that he was and is entirely unfit to be president of the United States.

Every day in every way he defiles the office of the presidency. Every day brings outrage. This week has been spent backpedaling and parsing whether the scum used the word 'shithouse' or 'outhouse' when describing countries in Latin America and Africa, as if the difference would somehow exonerate the bastard. As noted in an earlier post (11), Disgustus reeling from having been savaged by a new book describing the ugliness that now inhabits the White House, appeared on television holding a meeting with congressional leaders. During this meeting Disgustus was seen gyrating from one pole to another basically agreeing with whatever was last suggested, regardless of how contradictory, and finally declaring he would sign whatever the Congress could agree upon. That declaration put Senators Graham of South Carolina and Durbin of Illinois to work producing in short order a compromise on the DACA program which included some significant concessions by liberals on chain-immigration and skills requirements. The president was about to agree to it but hearing about the accord, White House Chief of Staff Kelly called in Sen. Cotton of Arkansas and Purdue of Georgia as well as several other hard liners to get Disgustus to change his mind yet once again. This led to the ugly meeting late last week in which the epithets hurled at those from Haiti and other countries blew up the agreement. Now, with the Democrats demanding action of DACA as well as the children's health care program CHIPS, which has been left unfunded since last September as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, the government, as we speak, is facing yet another shutdown. Meanwhile we are presented with yet another novel spectacle: the senate majority leader openly musing on the floor of the United States senate that he knows not what a president of his own party wants. This is what happens when one elects an outsider. This is what happens when a country disparages politics. This is what happens when vast swaths of the country consistently confuse celebrity with substance. Here stands the most ignorant and incompetent man ever to walk across the national political stage. Disgustus has no idea and that, in the end, will be all that may save us.

Today marks the anniversary of the arrival of Disgustus. The press tried to warn us. It has been a turbulent year as our orange Julius has gone about making a pig's breakfast of governance. It has been a year now since he was invited, albeit through the back door of the electoral college, into our living room. But this is no Van Gogh who took up residence. Our hospitality has not been rewarded with anything grand or beautiful. Instead he has defiled our living space, he has pissed in our fireplace, he has dragged us through turbulent indigo.

“Impeach and Imprison”

--------

1. http://jonimitchell.com/music/song.cfm?id=66
2. “Why He Should Not Be President” “The New York Times” editorial September 26, 2016, page A26.
3. Ibid
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. ibid
7. ibid
8. ibid
9. ibid
10. ibid.
11. January 12, 2018: Unforeseen Circumstance, Modern
    Caligula, Death Knell of the Republic