Casual Observation

Here’s another dot:

In the rush to connect the dots between the Trump Administration and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Jewish wedding provided the latest purported link.

Specifically, it’s the Jewish wedding of Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the White House aide whom the New York Times identified as having leaked sensitive intelligence to a high-ranking Republican congressman in March. New information suggests Cohen-Watnick’s wife worked on behalf of the Russian government as a Washington D.C-based public relations specialist before they married.

In November, the 30-year-old Trump aide celebrated his upcoming wedding with Rebecca Miller, a content executive at the multinational public-relations firm Ketchum, which was retained until 2015 by the Russian government. While at Ketchum, Miller reportedly worked to “make Russia look better.”

The information comes from an oral history interview of Miller’s mother, Vicki Fraser, by the State Historical Society of Missouri in August 2014 (Fraser was born in St. Louis).

“Her big challenges right now are Ketchum is responsible for providing PR and marketing to try to make Russia look better,” Fraser told the interviewer of her daughter, “which is particularly difficult when they’re invading other countries and when Putin is somewhat out of control.”

Nothing to see here, so just moving along…

Saakashvili to GOP: Investigate Obama’s Poor Performance

When America Toes Moscow’s Line | Politico – April 2017 |

I saw what happens when a U.S. president lets Vladimir Putin get away with murder. His name was Barack Obama.

By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI March 31, 2017

For someone with personal experience of Russian harassment and full-blown military attack, it is hard to observe the recent debate in the United States about Russian meddling with merely an academic interest. As the president of Georgia from 2004 to 2013, I saw firsthand how Russia treats its neighbors–and now Americans are getting a small taste of what former Soviet states have experienced for decades.

In August 2008, Russian troops headed toward Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, were stopped by the somehow belated but still powerful intervention of the George W. Bush administration, which made very clear to the Russians that Washington would not tolerate the full occupation of Georgia and the overthrow of its democratically elected government.


What of President Donald Trump? It’s true that some of his seemingly pro-Russian statements have also been met with alarm in our countries, as we are all too used to the reality that big countries can always deal with one another at the expense of smaller ones.

But I also have my own personal experience with Trump. After the 2008 invasion, many politicians in the West would avoid me in order not to alienate Putin–and many businessmen did, too. Anyone who invested in Georgia risked becoming persona non grata with Putin, precluding them from making money in Russia. In 2009, Trump faced the same dilemma. He had a choice to make between investment projects in Georgia or Russia, with Russia promising greater returns, but Georgia being attractive as an uncorrupt, safe place, and one of easiest countries to do business in the world. And Trump, who clearly had presidential ambitions even back then, opted for Georgia, and this very fact speaks volumes for me. I never detected any weakness in Trump for the Russian system–in fact he was very skeptical of corruption and red tape in Russia in his conversations with me.

Of course, legitimate questions need to be answered about whether anyone in his camp colluded with Moscow, but based on my personal experience, I believe the conspiracy theories that are swirling around Trump are just that: theories. What is unquestionable fact is that his predecessor’s weakness and misreading of Putin has led to dire consequences in this part of the world. When will you Americans investigate that?

Republicans Targeting Obama Team In New Effort

GOP senators call for probe into Susan Rice ‘unmasking’ reports | NY Post |

Two Republican senators called on Congress to investigate whether former National Security Adviser Susan Rice had political motives for “unmasking” Team Trump officials who were inadvertently caught on US surveillance.

“I’m not going to prejudge here, but I think every American should know whether or not the national security adviser to President Obama was involved in unmasking Trump transition figures for political purposes,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) told Fox News. “It should be easy to figure out, and we will.”

“When it comes to Susan Rice, you need to verify, not trust,” Graham said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went even further, calling for Rice to be subpoenaed and forced to spill her guts about what Obama knew of her activities.

“The facts will come out with Susan Rice, but I think she ought to be under subpoena, and she needs to be asked, `Did you talk to the president about it? Did President Obama know about this?’ ” Paul said on MSNBC.

GOP went after Susan Rice to undermine her credentials to become Secretary of State in 2012

Susan Rice faces renewed criticism from Republican senators – as it happened | The Guardian  – Nov. 28, 2012 |
Senator Susan Collins Goes Back To Africa To Raise Questions About Susan Rice Nomination

John Kerry: ‘US Cares About International Law’
Obama’s Victory in Libya of 2011 Became Clinton’s Failure in 2016 by Oui @BooMan on April 11, 2016
Could Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam Solve the Libya Crisis? | Feb. 2017 |

Trump’s Foreign Policy Mess

David Usborne doesn’t think that Xi Jinping will be moved “by the usual golf-and-cocktails Mar-a-Lago treatment,” and in fact believes that it’s a terrible idea for Trump to be meeting with him at this point in time. One main reason for this is that it’s pretty obvious that our president isn’t even remotely prepared.

You almost wish President Xi Jinping had lingered in Helsinki rather than continuing on his way to southern Florida for his two-day sojourn at Mar-a-Lago, the stucco-and-terracotta confection that nowadays, on account of its owner, has been dubbed the Southern White House.

That would be Donald Trump, who seems entirely unprepared for a first face-to-face with his Chinese counterpart. He doesn’t have his ambassador in Beijing yet. His trade negotiator has not been confirmed. Nor are the State Department experts who would normally formulate Asia policy and brief the president on it yet in place. It is possible we are underestimating the homework he has done ahead of it, but on balance that seems unlikely. True, Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, went on a ground-laying trip to Beijing last month, but was assailed for issuing a statement afterwards that read as if it had been written for him by his hosts.

In Tillerson’s case, he has an excuse because he read that statement between naps.

More seriously, it’s a bad time to talk to China because one of the top topics on the agenda will be what to do about North Korea, and to do that properly Trump needs to consult very closely with South Korea. But South Korea is experiencing a change in government at the moment after former president Park Geun-hye was first impeached and then arrested on (among others) charges of “bribery, abuse of power, coercion and leaking government secrets.”

Sending Tillerson there last month was a good idea, but he needs to go back (hopefully with a few packed cases of Red Bull).

The fact that Steve Bannon has been kicked off the National Security Council may indicate that H.R. McMaster is exerting control and that the adults in the intelligence and military communities realize that they need to get their ducks in a row in order to deal with the crisis on the Korean peninsula, as well as (possibly) with any fallout or change of policy vis-a-vis Bashir Assad in the aftermath of yesterday’s chemical attack on Syrian civilians.

Trump mentioned the Syrian atrocity during a joint Rose Garden meeting this afternoon with King Abdullah II of Jordan. What he didn’t mention was Russia, which is shocking I know. It was doubly notable because Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations was simultaneously pressing for a Security Council resolution condemning the attacks which was immediately opposed by Russia on the premise that Assad’s planes had only inadvertedly bombed a rebel chemical weapons barrack. They broke out Trump’s old standby and called the rest of the world’s reporting “fake news.”

To which I say, “that’s probably bullshit but we should make absolutely sure that it’s not.”

On the surface, it makes no sense for the Russians to allow Assad to use chemical weapons right now for precisely the reason that Trump was inclined yesterday to see Assad as more a partner in the fight against ISIS than as war criminal in need of a jail cell. Yet, while speaking in the Rose Garden this afternoon, Trump seemed like a different man:

“It crossed a lot of lines for me,” the president said during a Rose Garden press conference on Wednesday with Jordan’s King Abdullah. “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal that people were shocked to hear what gas it was, that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line, many many lines.”

Trump doubled down on his criticism of the Obama administration’s approach toward Syria, but said that the attack which has killed at least 72 people “had a big impact on me” and has changed his approach toward the country.

“It’s very, very possible that it’s already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” Trump said.

I tried to shrug off Trump’s criticism of Obama and the hypocrisy involved since Trump vociferously opposed intervening in Syria back during the debate over the chemical attacks near Damascus in August 2013. If he’s changed his position, that’s his right, and he’s never going to stop trying to ding Obama.

But if he were truly free to challenge Russia and Assad, he might have indicated it by criticizing Russia’s role in helping the Assad regime target their opponents and by criticizing Russia’s obstruction on the Security Council. That he did neither is just one more in a long line of dots that connect to demonstrate that the president is captured by the Kremlin.

Bannon Goes Down: MORE Snip, Snip, Snip. Clip, Clip, Clip. Drip, Drip, Drip.

Bannon Loses National Security Council Role in Trump Shakeup

There’s not much more to say, is there? The PermaGov and its media is taking Trump down, piece by piece. Booman sums up the system at work today in his article Trump is Failing for Same Reason That Boehner Failed, although his title is not necessarily accurate in this regard.

In truth, however, almost no Washington Republicans voted for Trump in the primaries. The elite conservative intelligentsia never saw Trump as fit for office, nor did they see him as an ideologically acceptable conservative.

—snip—

Most of them did not want Trump to win and were relieved that the polls indicated that he had no chance to win.

—snip—

Yup.

And further…when they finally realized that he had won, they immediately allied with the Dems in a bipartisan, no-holds-barred death match to get him impeached, force him to resign or at the very least make it impossible for him to do a goddamned thing of any consequence while in office.

Both sides have been snip/snip, clip/clip, drip/drip/dripping away for all they’re worth, just like a bunch of hairdressers getting Melania ready for her minute in the spotlight, hypnotically fixed and/or surgically implanted snile-smile and all.

As a direct result of their efforts, Trump is getting progressively smaller and smailer in the eyes of the citizenry/media-hypnotized population.

Bannon’s just the latest wrinkle to get botoxed.

            Geez, Martha!!!

Maybe he’s not so hot after all!!!

By the time these pros are finished with him, Trump’s little hands will dwarf what’s left of the rest of him.

                                     Hellllllllp!!!

                              I’m SHRIIIINKING!!!!

Watch.

AG.

P.S. Of course…then we’ll be in the other plot…errr, ahhh, I mean “pot.”

Neoliberalism, RatPublican-style.

Out of the leaky, cheap new pot and back into the good old, cast-iron PermaPot.

                     Phew!!!

            So much better, Martha!!!

                               Not!!!

                                 AG

Trump is Failing for Same Reason That Boehner Failed

Jonathan Chait thinks the Republicans will come to regret that Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected president. His reasoning is solid. If elected, Clinton would have found her legislative agenda mostly blocked by a Republican Congress, and there’s a decent chance that the left would have disintegrated in frustration, leading to more big midterm gains for the GOP and possibly an easy victory in the 2020 presidential race.

Michael Anton’s now-iconic essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” made the case for Trump as a desperation gamble. (Hence the metaphor to a hijacked airline flight whose passengers had to choose a desperate and probably doomed fight over certain death.) Anton, now a staffer in Trump’s administration, saw another four years of Democratic presidencies as the end of white America and conservative America. Most Republicans — even those, like Anton, deeply suspicious of Trump — ultimately agreed. Almost the entire GOP decided its hatred or fear of Clinton overrode their misgivings about their own nominee, and, with varying levels of enthusiasm, supported Trump. They brought disaster upon their country, but as a small measure of compensatory justice, they have also brought it upon their party. By the time Trump has departed the Oval Office, they will look longingly at a staid, boxed-in Clinton presidency as a road not taken.

In truth, however, almost no Washington Republicans voted for Trump in the primaries. The elite conservative intelligentsia never saw Trump as fit for office, nor did they see him as an ideologically acceptable conservative. They had reconciled themselves to a Clinton presidency and were gearing up to win the battle over the autopsy of Trump’s campaign. Most of them did not want Trump to win and we’re relieved that the polls indicated that he had no chance to win. When I wrote yesterday that “our country has been atomic-wedgied on a flagpole” by the Russians, I intentionally referred not just to the left or the Democrats. Trump spent his whole primary campaign giving wedgies to the Republican establishment. Jeb was “low energy” and “Little Rubio” was a lightweight, John McCain was no war hero and, by the way, here’s Lindsey Grahams personal cell phone number. Give it a call.

If President Trump is the most successful college prank ever pulled off, both parties are the victims.

After the Access Hollywood tape came out in early October, the Speaker of the House held a phone conference with members of his caucus and said outright that he wasn’t lifting a finger to help Trump and didn’t even contemplate that he might still win.

Here’s what Paul Ryan said on that call:

“[Trump’s Access Hollywood] comments are not anywhere in keeping with our party’s principles and values,” Ryan said. “There are basically two things that I want to make really clear, as for myself as your Speaker. I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future. As you probably heard, I disinvited him from my first congressional district GOP event this weekend—a thing I do every year. And I’m not going to be campaigning with him over the next 30 days.”

“Look, you guys know I have real concerns with our nominee,” Ryan continued. “I hope you appreciate that I’m doing what I think is best for you, the members, not what’s best for me. So, I want to do what’s best for our members, and I think this is the right thing to do. I’m going to focus my time on campaigning for House Republicans. I talked to a bunch of you over the last 72 hours and here is basically my takeaway. To everyone on this call, this is going to be a turbulent month. Many of you on this call are facing tough reelections. Some of you are not. But with respect to Donald Trump, I would encourage you to do what you think is best and do what you feel you need to do. Personally, you need to decide what’s best for you. And you all know what’s best for you where you are.”

The last thing that Paul Ryan was thinking at that moment is that he might have the opportunity to put his repeal and replace Obamacare bill on President Trump’s desk. Frankly, he didn’t even want that outcome, and he was hardly alone.

But he was wasn’t thinking three steps ahead, like Chait is asking us to do. He wasn’t calculating that the GOP would be better off in the end with a President Clinton. He considered a Clinton win a disaster, too. It’s just that, given the choice, it was obvious that Trump wasn’t an option because he wasn’t in any way “in keeping with our party’s principles and values.”

But Chait is correct that rank-and-file Republican voters largely stayed with Trump, meaning that they “brought disaster upon their country.” This led Trump to make a fatal miscalculation. He thought he won with a partisan vote so he should be able to govern with an exclusively partisan coalition. That was incorrect because his victory was a victory over both parties, and the Washington Establishment didn’t accept him irrespective of which party they represented.

Trump needed a bipartisan coalition from the moment he saw the surprising Electoral College results, and he had a major repair job to do if he was going to find any space on the left after insulting every ethnic and minority group in the country, running an explicitly racist campaign, and being exposed as a sexual predator. That was the moment when he needed to begin an aggressive pivot in both his style and rhetoric and in his legislative proposals. He was going to need to break some campaign promises, it’s true, but he had no choice because the Democrats weren’t going to associate with a man who was still calling for a Muslim Ban and for a mass deportation force and border wall.

Chait echoed a point I made recently when he wrote that this kind of pivot and bipartisanship “would cost [Trump] the Republican lockstep support he needs to quash investigations into his corruption and campaign ties to Russia.” I think this is a key point, which is why I characterized Trump’s presidency as doomed from the outset. But it wasn’t all that clear on Election Day that his liabilities on Russia would be so crippling. If it had been, he wouldn’t have overridden his own transition staff and made Michael Flynn his National Security Adviser. If he had understood his situation correctly, he wouldn’t have persisted in doubting the Intelligence Community’s conclusion that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf, and he wouldn’t have been allowing his staff to meet with the Russian ambassador in Trump Tower or set up a surreptitious meeting with a Putin representative in the Seychelles.

At least at the outset, he had some alternatives. He might have tried to gain support for a legislative agenda that, while distinct from his campaign promises, was consistent with it in spirit. There were coalitions of Democrats who might have helped him figure out an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership or ways to renegotiate NAFTA. He could have had support for an infrastructure bill that looked a lot like what President Obama had called for for years. Repeal and replace could have been softened into something less vindictive and more constructive. He could have consulted the Democrats on appointments to key administrative and cabinet positions.

In the end, this would have probably broken the House of Representatives in ways I have been advocating that it break ever since John Boehner discovered that he had to rely on Democratic votes to pass appropriations bills, pay the government’s debts, and keep the government’s doors open. Just as with Boehner, Trump’s true House majority would always have to be bipartisan if it were to be a majority at all. Why not elect a speaker who was reflective of that governing majority? Paul Ryan was disloyal anyway, so there was no need to prefer him to stay on.

But Trump decided that he would and could govern with no Democratic votes, and even went to great lengths to assure that he’d have no other option.

Now, as the behavior of House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes so clearly demonstrates, Trump needs the current House alignments to stay in place. If he were to force Ryan out and orchestrate a bipartisan leadership in the House, he’d immediately find himself besieged by subpoenas and possibly (soon after) articles of impeachment.

He’s not yet 100 days into his presidency, and he’s already arrived at this place. And he arrived at it in large part because he didn’t even try to avoid this fate.

In retrospect, the first thing he should have done after winning the election is call John Boehner and tell him he wanted to golf. Then Boehner could have explained to him that he’d never be able to corral the House Republicans to enact his agenda and that he’d need to think creatively about what he wanted to do and about how to get a majority that would make it possible.

Russia Isn’t an Excuse to Avoid Introspection

Some think that every time anyone writes about Russia it means that the left is avoiding taking responsibility for losing the election and therefore won’t learn important lessons. Some think that every non-Clinton primary or general election voter on the left is afraid to admit they were wrong that they could savage or not support the candidate without consequence, and so they are petrified to admit that anything other than Clinton’s and the Democratic leadership’s failures can explain the catastrophe that has befallen our nation.

Let me put this debate in some context. Here’s a poll:

President Trump’s approval rating has tumbled 11 points since March, according to a new poll released Monday.

Thirty-four percent of Americans approve of Trump’s job performance in the latest Investor’s Business Daily (IBD)/TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP) survey.

Fifty-six percent disprove of Trump’s showing instead, and Monday’s results mark an 11-point drop in Trump’s approval rating since the president’s 45 percent last month in the same poll.

I’m not cherrypicking an outlier poll here. While the TIPP survey has the lowest approval for Trump yet (34%), the overall downward trend and disapproval in the low-to-mid-fifties is consistent across all the polls that have come out recently. The president is tanking.

Now, the purpose of writing about Russia isn’t to hurt Trump’s poll numbers, but it certainly hasn’t been helping him. We can talk about agency, since obviously Trump is the most self-injurious politician we’ve seen since Anthony Weiner. How much is the Russia issue hurting him versus his horrible health care bill or his odious travel ban or his failure to get the Mexicans to pay for his wall? And isn’t he more responsible than anyone for keeping the Russia issue alive with all his unhinged tweeting about it being a witch hunt and fake news?

All I can say is that there’s no evidence that Trump is benefitting in any way from pretty much anything, and certainly not because liberal columnists and bloggers and television hosts won’t let up on Russia.

Everyone has their pet theory about how the Democrats should be different, and what you’ll notice before long is that all the people who are asking folks to shut up about Russia are really asking them to talk about their pet theory instead.

For them, admitting that money and media affect elections is easy when it’s the Koch Brothers exploiting Citizens United, but when it’s Russians manipulating their Facebook feed, that’s a threat to their worldview that all would be rosy if only Sanders had been nominated or Clinton had campaigned in Wisconsin or neoliberalism had been strangled in the crib.

These rearview battles are the real distraction. The president is bleeding like a stuck pig, and people want to run to his rescue because it’s all a big distraction from the thing they really care about.

Like I said, the Russia issue isn’t about hurting the president’s poll numbers. It’s about our foreign policy and the integrity of our elections and potential corruption and disloyalty in our public officials. But the polls do tell a story, and that story is that Trump isn’t winning this fight or this argument.

It’s just bizarre that people will freak out about voter suppression and lax campaign finance laws but shrug off an entire nation state throwing its weight into one side of an election.

The left needs to do some serious naval-gazing, no doubt, but talking about Russia isn’t going to prevent that from happening. And if we don’t prevent what happened last time from happening again, we’ll be fighting with both arms tied behind our backs no matter how good our platform and messaging turn out to be.

Warren Commission, v.2. Coming Right Up!!!

==================
I wrote a comment on Booman’s post today (Tues., 4/4/17) Matt Taibbi is Concerned About the Tone It grew, and I am now posting it on its own. Read it in good health. For the good health of the Republic, if for no other reason.
==================

You quote Matt Taibbi, Booman:

These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots pushed on the unwitting “bros” juicy “fake news” stories about Hillary being “involved with various murders and money laundering schemes.”

Some 13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does any rational person really believe voted that way because of “fake news”?

I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for Sanders himself.

To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It’s also a testimony to the remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.

If the party’s leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they’re farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner.

He’s right.

You are right, too. The only way out of this dangerous informational cul-de-sac in which we now find ourselves is a rational, thorough and honest investigation into the sources of disinfo that are being blamed for the fuckup.

But therein lies the kicker.

Read on for more:
Since national faith in the honesty and/or competence of the federal government has plummeted to a sub-30% approval rating…deservedly and without any help from any foreign forces over the last 50 years or so, simply on all available evidence…who can believe that we won’t just get another Whitewash commission like the one that “investigated” the JFK murder? A pre-judged “The Gummint is right!!!” coverup.

This problem is short-term unfixable.

Sorry, but there it is and there it will stay until long-term proof of federal honesty and competence is provided by the federal government. This is something that appears unlikely to happen anytime soon, so we are left to fend for ourselves and take every federal pronouncement or effort not with a grain of salt but with a massive dose of salts.

Meanwhile, the ship of state circles vacuously around the whirlpool at the bottom of the planetary toilet.

Yup.

“Investigate” the Russian influence?

Sure.

Hold your nose and dive right in.

Watch.

ASG

P.S. I am quite sure that Russia has “bot and troll” propaganda efforts in place, efforts that have had some amount of success in changing minds. I am also quite sure…and any rational person should agree with me…that considering the “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” and “Spy vs. spy” concepts, the U.S. has had at least an equal if not superior effort in place for many decades, doing exactly the same sorts of things. (In different incarnations as the forms of media consumption changed.)

I encountered a most likely U.S.-based version (certainly a pro-mainstream Dem version) …and proved its existence beyond a shadow of a doubt by a time/effort collation of hostile responses to my posts…during the waning days of the pre-July 4th dKos massacre way back in 2006. Is this coming “investigation” going to out those efforts? Efforts that I am sure were aimed at Bernie Sanders as well as Donald Trump over the past year or more? Efforts that were probably in place at least right on back to the non-personing of Ross Perot in the early ’90s? Aimed at Howard Dean? Dennis Kucinich etc.?  Aimed at anybody in a position of potential power who in any way threatens the PermaGov monopoly? Please!!! Will it expand its “investigation” to include the pre-digital “Operation Mockingbird” actions of the CIA in placing operatives in positions of power in every major media system in the U.S.?

I mean…talk about “affecting elections!!!”

Oh.

It’s only bad if the hostile forces doing this are from another country???!!!

Riiiight…

Gimme a break.

Yore truly patriotic freind…

Emily Litella

Matt Taibbi is Concerned About the Tone

I have news for Matt Taibbi. When Russian mobsters crash your daughter’s wedding party and spike the punch with LSD-25, it’s not McCarthyism to be pissed off that Cousin Jethro is up on the roof with Sergei in their underwear jabbering about the Dixie Chicks and InfoWars. And it won’t do to pretend none of it matters if we can’t prove that the father of the groom was in on the whole thing.

I’ll stipulate up front that Taibbi, who spent his formative years with Mark Ames writing for The Exile and drinking and drugging in Yeltsin’s Moscow, knows more about Russia than I ever will. If Mark Ames is right, Taibbi is more fearless about Russian mobsters than I ever will be, too.

Ames claims that while he was gone [in the States] Taibbi mismanaged The Exile, running it into debt and embroiling it in a libel lawsuit with Russian hockey star Pavel Bure after Taibbi ran a prank story claiming Bure’s then girlfriend, tennis player Anna Kournikova, had two vaginas. Ames says Taibbi pushed him to take on Bure, a hero among some of Moscow’s less humor-inclined underworld figures, knowing that it might endanger The Exile and Ames’s safety, even his life. “He wanted out of The Exile and he wanted out of my shadow. He was pretty clear that he wanted The Exile to go down,” Ames says.

I don’t know why these two gentleman are both so hostile to the idea that Russia may have done something unforgivable when they decided to treat our democracy like a suitable victim for a college prank. But it doesn’t shock me that some people’s minds drift towards a combination of fear and compromise.

What I do know is that Taibbi frames the question incorrectly from the get-go when he makes it all about Trumpian collusion, as if stealing the voter rolls and using them to microtarget our electorate with fake news were not enough on its own.

Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting. Perhaps [Michael] Flynn will get a deal, walk into the House or the Senate surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid conspiracy.

He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps even blackmailed by an unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He’ll say Trump agreed to downplay the obvious benefits of an armed proxy war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia in exchange for Vladimir Putin’s help in stealing the emails of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.

I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven’t seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?

One clue here is Taibbi’s sarcastic reference to the obvious benefits of an armed proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. But snideness isn’t an argument. You don’t have to agree with the bipartisan consensus view of the American Establishment that Ukraine would be better off in the E.U. than having itself carved up by a man like Vladimir Putin. You can agree with Donald Trump that Russia hasn’t gone into Ukraine and that Crimeans are happier being part of Russia. You don’t even have to want to give Ukraine “lethal defensive weapons.” After all, Obama refused to do just that.

What you can’t do is say with any credibility that Trump having the GOP change the party platform to weaken its position on Ukraine isn’t any evidence of some kind of quid pro quo.

But, look, when E. Howard Hunt graduated from fucking up democracy in Guatemala and invasions of Cuba to orchestrating half-ass break-ins of the Democrats’ party headquarters, people didn’t think it was Hunt taking it down a notch. People didn’t say it was politics as usual. What they said (for quite a while) is that “we haven’t seen any real evidence of” Nixon’s involvement and that all those pesky Washington Post reporters have proved is that Nixon Derangement Syndrome has arrived.

Or, the useful idiots said that. The folks with an olfactory sense for smoke and trouble knew that decorated CIA officers don’t run domestic operations using Cuban exiles against the national headquarters of a major party in an election year without there being something truly goddamned sinister underlying it.

But, hey if the break-in is only digital who cares if it is vastly more successful in pilfering information? Who cares if the theft is carried out by an actual foreign government. Right?

In 1974, G. Gordon Liddy goes to jail, Nixon resigns, and Hunter S. Thompson is vindicated. In 2017, Vladimir Putin receives a tongue bath from Rolling Stone and Donald Trump gets a couple of gasps of unmerited reprieve.

So, is breaking into a political party’s emails and using them to influence an election a crime or not? Is it something that Americans have a right to be angry about? Is it okay if we interrupt Putin’s murder spree for five minutes to mention that we’re displeased with him?

Or will that later on get us accused of premature anti-fascism?

Because, it seems to me that Matt Taibbi is a little too concerned about the tone, which is rich coming from a guy who cut his chops hitting New York Times Moscow-bureau chief Michael Wines in the face with a homemade horse semen pie.

When did Matt Taibbi begin giving a shit about the tone?

And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.

Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump’s history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.

When did Matt Taibbi begin to sound exactly like George Will?

I’m no fan of John McCain, and I’m not above taking on his war record. And I know he never met a problem he didn’t want to bomb. But I sit up and notice when he starts making Matt Taibbi sound like Tokyo Rose:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that a select committee must be formed to investigate every aspect of Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 presidential election.

“Every time we turn around, another shoe drops from this centipede,” McCain told host Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“We need to examine every aspect of it: President Trump’s priorities, and the other priorities many of us believe exist,” McCain said.

If you blink, you’ll miss our new Education Secretary’s brother meeting with a Putin representative in the Seychelles or another revelation about the former head of our Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn taking filthy lucre from a Russian cybersecurity firm to talk out of school about American intelligence operations.

And to think people were upset with Kim Philby!

But no one made Kim Philby our National Security Adviser, did they?

I don’t know what to make of Carter Page, but I was interested to see that he was the target of a major recruitment effort by Russian intelligence back in 2013, and that he was offered “empty promises” of contracts because the officers thought he was just the kind of money-hungry idiot to fall for their schemes. He somehow went from that to being named as one of Trump’s top national security advisers and allegedly getting offered a 19% stake in Rosneft in return for a lifting of sanctions.

What I can observe, however, is that Taibbi is less interested in how in the hell Carter Page wound up mentoring Donald Trump and meeting with the Russian ambassador on his behalf than he is in assuring us that no one is a dupe or an agent of the Russkie intelligence services.

Even before the vote was held last November, news outlets were noting the influence of internet bots. What they didn’t initially realize was that those bots were Russian in origin and accompanied by an army of trolls. Of course, they should have suspected this since Adrian Chen reported on it for the New York Times Magazine all the way back in June of 2015:

Who was behind all of this? When I stumbled on it last fall, I had an idea. I was already investigating a shadowy organization in St. Petersburg, Russia, that spreads false information on the Internet. It has gone by a few names, but I will refer to it by its best known: the Internet Research Agency. The agency had become known for employing hundreds of Russians to post pro-Kremlin propaganda online under fake identities, including on Twitter, in order to create the illusion of a massive army of supporters; it has often been called a “troll farm.” The more I investigated this group, the more links I discovered between it and the hoaxes. In April, I went to St. Petersburg to learn more about the agency and its brand of information warfare, which it has aggressively deployed against political opponents at home, Russia’s perceived enemies abroad and, more recently, me…

Initially, Chen was focused on the propagation of fake news and stories that made America look bad (or Putin good), but by December of 2015 he had noticed something else:

“A very interesting thing happened,” Chen told Longform’s Max Linsky in a podcast in December.

“I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching. And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don’t know what’s going on, but they’re all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff,” he said.

Linsky then asked Chen who he thought “was paying for that.”

“I don’t know,” Chen replied. “I feel like it’s some kind of really opaque strategy of electing Donald Trump to undermine the US or something. Like false-flag kind of thing. You know, that’s how I started thinking about all this stuff after being in Russia.”

And here we get to the heart of the matter. Because undermining the U.S. by electing Donald Trump is what this is all about. On the one side we have Russia hacking into voter files so they can microtarget undecided soccer moms in Mahoning County, Ohio. To do this, they have armies of bots to like and retweet fake news cooked up in Macedonia and elsewhere. They have an army of trolls holed up in some complex in St. Petersburg to amplify pro-Trump/anti-Hillary messages. They have several different intelligence arms hacking into American politicos’ electronic communications and divulging only that which is damaging to Clinton.

And then on the other side we have this whimper of logic from Matt Taibbi:

These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots pushed on the unwitting “bros” juicy “fake news” stories about Hillary being “involved with various murders and money laundering schemes.”

Some 13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does any rational person really believe voted that way because of “fake news”?

I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for Sanders himself.

To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It’s also a testimony to the remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.

If the party’s leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they’re farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner.

There’s always the possibility that Russia is simply deluded about the return on investment they get out of all these operations. It does look like the American Establishment still has some fighting spirit left in it, and they’ve acted swiftly to expose Trump’s associations and to cut out Michael Flynn. Maybe the sanctions won’t get lifted after all. But Trump is still the most successful acid-induced college prank ever pulled off, because the simple fact that he’s our president is a complete disaster. Our country has been atomic-wedgied on a flagpole, and our ass is exposed to the world.

If you think having a lunatic in charge of the most lethal radioactive arsenal in this sector of the galaxy is a safer bet than challenging Russia on the future of Ukraine, then keep your eye on North Korea. There’s nothing remotely funny about what Russia did here.

What we have are a lot of people who don’t want to face facts. Some think the Democrats deserved to lose because they nominated a bad candidate or the DNC rigged the game or they ignored the white working class or they pushed too hard and too fast on the cultural front. And no one wants to admit that they or anyone else was duped or influenced by the (often fake) stuff they saw in their Twitter feeds or on Facebook or from troll commenters on blogs and in newspapers.

Others think that the left can’t talk about Russia without forgetting to work on making a better and broader appeal to the American public. And still others are scarred from the Cold War (like Matt “no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia” Taibbi) that they smell McCarthyism around every corner.

The truth is, we got pantsed by Russia and we have every right to be angry as hell about it.

Only when we reach agreement on this point should we begin debating how witting the Trump campaign was about the whole thing. And, whether we can prove cooperation or not, we know the result. And, assuming we survive the result, the result cannot be replicated.

The War on Women is Real

Here’s a helpful list compiled by Axios of the known allegations of sexual harassment against Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly, along with some of the settlement details. I think it’s useful to see it all in one place:

O’Reilly’s accusers 

  • Andrea Mackris: Former producer. Accused O’Reilly of making inappropriate phone calls. O’Reilly paid her a $9 million settlement, according to the NYT.
  • Wendy Walsh: Former regular O’Reilly guest. Claims he offered to help her get a position at Fox News but reneged after she declined to go to a hotel room with him. She has filed suit.
  • Rebecca Gomez Diamond: Former Fox Business host. Accused O’Reilly of inappropriate phone calls. O’Reilly paid her a settlement, according to the NYT.
  • Juliet Huddy: Former regular O’Reilly guest. Accused him of inappropriate phone calls and trying to kiss her, and then damaging her career after she rejected his advances. Fox paid her a $1.6 million settlement, according to the NYT.
  • Andrea Tantaros: Former Fox News Host. Sued both O’Reilly and Ailes for alleged sexual harassment.
  • Laurie Dhue: Former Fox News host. Sued both O’Reilly and Ailes for alleged sexual harassment. Fox paid her over $1 million, according to the NYT.

Ailes’ accusers

  • Julia Roginsky: Fox News contributor. Sued Fox and Ailes claiming they had made “her deserved promotion to a regular spot hosting ‘The Five’ contingent upon having a sexual relationship with Ailes.”
  • Gretchen Carlson: Former Fox News host. Sued Ailes for allegedly harming her career after she rebuffed his advances. Fox paid her $20 million.
  • Megyn Kelly: Former Fox News host. During an internal investigation, she said Ailes had made unwanted advances when she was a Fox News correspondent, according to NY Mag.
  • Kellie Boyle: Former GOP communications consultant. She claimed in NY Mag that Ailes had offered to help her career in exchange for sex but had her “blacklisted” when she declined.
  • Rudi Bakhtiar: Former Fox News reporter. She claims Ailes made inappropriate comments to her and that she was fired after accusing another Fox News employee of sexual harassment.
  • Tantaros and Dhue, whose allegations are listed above.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a big piece on how Bill O’Reilly (unlike the deposed Roger Ailes) is thriving at Fox News despite now being responsible for about $13 million in out-of-court settlements with women he has mistreated. The Times even uncovered a couple of more disturbing incidences that never arose to litigation.

All the while, the network has mocked the very idea that there is a War on Women.

Of course, this is just one very influential media organ. The more consequential War on Women is taking place right now in the Senate where Neal Gorsuch is being considered for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

Can and Should McConnell Go Nuclear?

Adam Jentleson, writing in the New York Times, makes a couple of useful points about the prospect that Mitch McConnell will break the rules to change the Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster for lifetime Supreme Court nominees.

The first worthwhile point Jentleson makes is about simple proportionality. He compares what led up to Harry Reid’s 2013 decision to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominees and executive branch nominees to what McConnell has so far faced in the way of Democratic obstruction. In other words, has McConnell exhausted his alternatives to going nuclear?

By the time Democrats exercised the nuclear option, Senator McConnell had unleashed nearly 500 filibusters and spent years twisting Republicans’ arms to prevent them from working with Democrats, regardless of the substance of a given issue, in pursuit of his goal of denying President Obama a second term…

…Second, even after Republican obstruction had become a sad fact of Senate life, Senator Harry Reid tried for years to avert the nuclear option. He worked with Republicans such as Lamar Alexander of Tennessee to devise numerous “gentlemen’s agreements” to make the Senate work more efficiently. When those efforts failed, the nuclear option was a last resort.

Even this description doesn’t capture the sick majesty of what McConnell did as both Minority and Majority Leader during President Obama’s term. He took procedural stalling to an unheard of level, on the theory that less could be accomplished by the Democrats if they had fewer legislative days in which to get it done. For this reason, he forced cloture and other procedural votes on things that had been routine Senate business in the past. But, most importantly, when four seats on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opened up, McConnell insisted that the court was too large and the seats should not be filled. He therefore convinced his caucus to filibuster any and all nominees to serve on the nation’s second most important court, in perpetuity and without any regard for the qualifications of individual candidates.

This last gambit was so outrageous that it forced Harry Reid’s hand.

Jentleson’s second key point is that McConnell hasn’t tried to avoid a nuclear showdown at all.

Rather than accept Democrats’ opposition as legitimate, Senator McConnell is dead set on escalation. The view among veteran McConnell watchers is he has already decided to go nuclear. For a man who chooses his words carefully, Mr. McConnell’s saying that Judge Gorsuch will be “confirmed on Friday” is tantamount to saying that he intends to go nuclear if Democrats block the confirmation on the floor…

…The majority leader has made no real effort to avert the nuclear option. To the contrary, he appears to be itching to pull the trigger — and in his insidious way, he wants to convince Democrats that it’ll be their fault when he does.

This is an important thing to keep in mind. If Trump or McConnell wanted to avoid a filibuster, they needed to do what is normally done, which is to consult with the Democratic leadership about which potential nominees they would find objectionable and which they could see their way to confirming. But there was no consultation before Gorsuch was named. It was just assumed that the Democrats would roll over and confirm him despite what the Republicans had done to block Merrick Garland without cause last year.

The Republicans did nothing to avoid a filibuster.

This means either that they were stupid (which is always a strong possibility with this crew) or that they never cared whether Gorsuch was filibustered or not because they intended to confirm him either way.

In the very long term, it will probably benefit the left more than the right not to have a judicial filibuster, both because Democratic presidents will be more common than Democratic majorities in the Senate, and because they’ll be able to get actual left-wingers on the Court rather than whomever can pass through a Republican filibuster.

In the short term, though, the Republicans will be able to overturn Roe v. Wade during Trump’s term in office if a Democrat-appointed vacancy comes open on the Court. In the past, I would have said that this is the last thing the Republican leadership really wanted to accomplish because it would inspire a backlash unlike anything we’ve seen in American politics in living memory. In the past, they could sneak a David Souter on the Court and buy themselves a couple of decades of dedicated activism in the service of an outcome they didn’t really support.

But they may be radicalized enough at this point to want to turn America into Saudi Arabia when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. And when they lose the filibuster as an excuse, they won’t be able to hide behind Democratic obstruction to explain why they haven’t delivered on their promises. This time, Roe will go.

But, of course, this all depends on Mitch McConnell being able to get at least 49 of his 51 senators (not including himself) to vote to kill the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Maybe he can accomplish that or maybe he can’t. He could be bluffing or he could just be wrong.

Not everyone in the Republican Senate caucus wants to see Roe overturned. Some are open about about this, but more have been in on the game for a very long time and don’t want to see it end. Still others aren’t eager to mess with the Senate rules in such a fundamental way.

It won’t be easy to actually win the nuclear option vote. I don’t see the outcome as a foregone conclusion.

But, regardless of what happens, on the merits there is no way that it can be sincerely argued that McConnell has faced the same level of obstruction that Harry Reid did, nor that McConnell has exhausted his alternatives.