Thursday, May 11, 2017

Why It Matters


Watching a grown man throw a temper tantrum

If you're going to consider the ramifications of a President whose lawyers have to keep him from picking up the phone to chat with Michael Flynn, keep this in mind:

We now know that Donald Trump chose a man as his top national security adviser whom the prior president had both fired and warned him against hiring. We know that Trump’s White House failed to vet this man who would be entrusted with some of America’s most sensitive secrets and decisions. We know they did not get him the security clearances his position required, yet allowed him to operate freely in that position. We know that this man, Gen. Michael Flynn, took significant cash payments from an enemy, Russia, and from a nominal ally with which we have precarious relations, Turkey. We know Flynn failed to disclose those payments in violation of the law.

With that highlighted sentence we're back to the Russians in the Oval Office with their cameras.  John Negroponte assured NPR that no breach of security could have occurred, because it's the White House.  Others, however, were not so reassured:

The officials cited the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics. Former U.S. intelligence officials raised questions after photos of Trump’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were posted online by the Tass news agency.
....
Other former intelligence officials also described the access granted to the photographer as a potential security lapse, noting that standard screening for White House visitors would not necessarily detect a sophisticated espionage device.

Well, that could never happen, right?

Russia has in the past gone to significant lengths to hide bugs in key U.S. facilities. In the late 1990s, the State Department’s security came under fire after the discovery of a sophisticated listening device in a conference room on the seventh floor, where then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and others often held meetings.
And then we have a President who still thinks Flynn was done wrong, and wants to commiserate with him.  Because what could go wrong, right?

And that "evidence of collusion" Trump keeps saying doesn't exist?  Well, one FBI agent had this to say about Trump's assertion Comey told Trump repeatedly that Trump was not the subject of any investigation:  “That is literally farcical.”  Instead, we have this:

Indeed, we know that the only thing likely to keep Flynn from serving time for felonies is if he strikes a bargain with the prosecutors who are now investigating his behavior. As a consequence of revelations associated with those investigations, we know that Flynn had on-going contact with Russian officials during the campaign and, after he was named national security adviser, had conversations with the Russian ambassador about which he lied to the American people and, ostensibly, to the vice president of the United States. We know these conversations were likely illegal as well.
This is the "genius" who grabs headlines and distracts attention from, well, from Sally Yates most recently, and these are the consequences:

We don’t know what crimes may or may not have been committed — but we do see several patterns of behavior. All are deeply worrisome. Trump has repeatedly shown a reckless disregard for US national security and national interests. He has shown a contempt for the law and for the American legal system. And when challenges to the legality of the behavior of his associates have arisen, Trump has repeatedly acted in ways that appear intended to prevent or impede the ability of those who would seek the truth. (Perhaps worse, he regularly takes to Twitter and other media to do to them what he never does to the Russians who attacked our democracy: denigrate and discredit those individuals for doing their jobs and upholding their sworn duties.) 
And yes, as we used to say in the '60's, the whole world is watching:

This activity is not lost on the rest of the world. They see an America unlike any they can recall and a leader who is clearly not fit for office. Said one diplomat from a close ally in this hemisphere, “We often have discussions at home as to whether Trump is crazy. We think he is. We have had experience with leaders like this in South America. But I never expected to see it in Washington.” It is a sentiment I have heard in one form or another often in the past few weeks. 
If I continue to quote this, it's because I can't say it any better myself:

The brazen firing of Comey is an escalation. If Trump is allowed to get away with this and appoint a lackey as chief investigator into his team’s alleged wrong-doing, the world will see the United States as a failing state, one that is turning its back on the core ideas on which it was founded — that no individual is above the law and that those in the government, at every level including the president, work for the people. Only if an independent prosecutor is appointed will America be seen as being the nation of laws it has long represented itself to be. Only if a thorough investigation takes place that includes an examination of Trump family ties in Russia (and elsewhere) and how these may have compromised the United States will the message be sent that America is the nation that has for so long been seen as an example to the world. 
I remember the argument (I don't know its provenance, which may well have affected its legitimacy) that the rest of the world (i.e., Europe, let's face it) was perplexed that America would oust Richard Nixon for such a minor peccadillo, considering how good he was at foreign relations (going to China was no small feat).  I like to think that, in the end, America taught the world-weary and cynical Europeans something about self-government and integrity and the rule of law.

Are we about to turn our back on that lesson?

L'etat, c'est moi!



Whoo, boy.....

"What a fun time to be alive!"

Donald Trump is a stupid, dangerous Man-Child


Just when you thought it couldn't get any more interesting....

Exhibit A:

White House lawyers have had to warn President Donald Trump repeatedly against reaching out to his fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, two people familiar with the matter tell The Daily Beast.

Trump, angered by press coverage of the Russia investigation and Gen. Flynn, has asked senior staff and the White House counsel’s office multiple times if it was appropriate to reach out to the fired National Security Adviser, according to a source close to Flynn and a Trump administration official with direct knowledge of the exchanges.

“While the president does not regret firing Gen. Flynn, he feels he is a good man who served his country bravely and honorably and who is being treated unfairly by the press and the Democrats on Capitol Hill,” another Trump administration official said. These officials requested anonymity as a condition of discussing legal advice to the president.
It's all about Trump and his feelings.  Michael Flynn had no business being in the White House, reportedly couldn't get the security clearances he needed, was clearly compromised and a danger to national security, and yet Trump is aggrieved and that's all that matters to him.  He doesn't understand the duties of the office, he doesn't understand the responsibilities of the office, he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions in the office.  All that matters to Trump are the feelings of Trump.  Which leads us directly to:

Exhibit B:

When President Donald Trump hosted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office on Wednesday just hours after firing the FBI director who was overseeing an investigation into whether Trump’s team colluded the Russians, he was breaking with recent precedent at the specific request of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The chummy White House visit—photos of the president yukking it up with Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak were released by the Russian Foreign Ministry since no U.S. press was allowed to cover the visit—had been one of Putin’s asks in his recent phone call with Trump, And indeed the White House acknowledged this to me later Wednesday. “He chose to receive him because Putin asked him to,” a White House spokesman said of Trump’s Lavrov meeting. “Putin did specifically ask on the call when they last talked.” 
How you gonna say no to Putin?  Which, yes, gets worse, because of Exhibits C, D, and E:


David Cohen is a former Deputy Director of the CIA.  Colin Kahl is a former Deputy Assistant to Barack Obama and National Security Advisor to Joe Biden.  John Negroponte was on NPR this morning, sure that proper security measures were taken in the Oval Office, because:  sure, right?  Right?

The administration official also said the White House had been misled about the role of the Russian photographer. Russian officials had described the individual as Lavrov’s official photographer without disclosing that he also worked for Tass.

“We were not informed by the Russians that their official photographer was dual-hatted and would be releasing the photographs on the state news agency,” the administration official said.
Sure; they were on top of everything.

As for the firing  of Comey:  first, there's a new excuse from the White House:



I'm sure this will improve morale at the FBI, as now they know the beatings will continue until then:

Bobby Chacon, a former FBI agent who served in Los Angeles and New York and retired in 2014, compared the abrupt firing to “a punch in the stomach to agents”.

“I myself, and I would speak for a lot of agents, feel very disrespected by the administration and how this was handled,” he told the Guardian. Other former agents said the way Comey was fired was an “outrage” and said that the Trump administration’s approach “besmirches the reputation of the FBI”.

In defending the FBI director’s firing, the Trump administration has argued that agents on the street were ready to see Comey go.

“The rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director,” deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a White House press briefing Wednesday.

But former agents said the abrupt firing was shocking and disturbing.

“All the agents felt like the director should at least be called” to be informed of his firing, Chacon said. The way the news was delivered seemed “almost like a public embarrassment and humiliation”, Chacon said. “If it’s done to the director, by association, it’s done to the agents themselves.”
But the real danger is that we don't realize the "genius" of Donald Trump.  Lawrence Tribe thinks Trump is "crazy like a fox":

“He is yet again changing the headline from what was disadvantageous for him; namely what a pistol [former AG] Sally Yates was” in testifying about Trump’s former top national security adviser’s ties to Russia, Tribe said. “That was the headline, and suddenly the headline is all about, should we have an independent counsel [to do the Russia investigation] and commission and what kind of counsel. It is a cloud of stuff.”
Actually he's crazy like a child who knows how to always get attention, even if it's negative attention.  He doesn't understand the difference, but he's on the verge of finding out.  As Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president under George W. Bush and director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, puts it:  “Don’t underestimate the role incompetence and volatility/instability play in all this.”  Trump is not crazy like a fox; Trump is crazy like a child.  A 70 year old child.  The proof of that?  Here's one more reason Trump felt Comey wasn't loyal and had to go:

In the weeks leading up to Comey’s firing, Trump administration officials had repeatedly urged the FBI to more aggressively pursue leak investigations, according to people familiar with the discussions. Administration officials sometimes sought to push the FBI to prioritize leak probes over the Russia interference case, and at other times urged the bureau to investigate disclosures of information that was not classified or highly sensitive and therefore did not constitute crimes, these people said.

If you can cast your mind back to Monday, you'll recall former DNI James Clapper schooling the Senator from Louisiana about this:   "...unclassified is not leaking."  But it should be criminal, because it pisses off Trump!  Amirite?  Besides, we still have a few exhibits left.  Early on, the thinking was the White House couldn't be so dumb as to not realize how this would be received.

Turns out, they were:

“I think the surprise of a great many in the White House was that as soon as this became a Trump decision, all of the Democrats who had long been calling for Comey’s ouster decided that this was now an awful decision,” [White House Communications Director Michael] Dubke said. “So there was a surprise at the politicization of Democrats on this so immediately and so universally.”
Trump's ignorance is contagious.  Told ya so!

And we still have these questions:

Why was Sessions involved in discussions about the fate of the man leading the FBI’s Russia investigation, after having recused himself from the probe because he had falsely denied under oath his own past communications with the Russian ambassador?

(Because his word is as worthless as tits on a boar hog?)

Why had Trump discussed the Russia probe with the FBI director three times, as he claimed in his letter dismissing Comey, which could have been a violation of Justice Department policies that ongoing investigations generally are not to be discussed with White House officials? 

(Because he's a liar who can't tell truth from fiction?)

These are actually very serious questions.  Another is why Trump can't tell the difference between a resignation and firing someone who is investigating you.  Indeed, he still thinks throwing a temper tantrum is a winning strategy:



Manipulative genius?  Or whiny 70 year old brat?

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

What the kids call a "hot mess"


BBC World Service interviewed a former Republican attorney general (I missed some of it, including his name; the voice was not familiar, so it might have been a deputy AG), who defended the firing of Comey by citing the reasons Trump gave, to the letter.

The only problem is, Sarah Sanders was busy in the White House briefing room undermining those reasons:

The first was a version of the story from yesterday: the DOJ leadership told him to. According to Sanders, Rod Rosenstein visited the White House Monday and told the President that he believed Comey should be fired. The President, in essence, asked for it in writing. He received the letters Tuesday and promptly acted on the advice and fired Comey.
That was the version defended to the BBC.  But note it doesn't linger long as the reason:

She also said that the President has been thinking about firing Comey since he entered office and has slowly lost confidence in his leadership of the FBI. I thought I heard her say that he’s thought about firing Comey every day since he was inaugurated. But I couldn’t find that in the transcript. If she did say it, it would be one of the few statements I find credible.

Sanders also said that the President was particularly troubled by Comey’s testimony last Wednesday in which he described and justified his decisions to make public pronouncements about the Clinton emails probe. He was apparently disturbed that Comey disregarded the DOJ chain of command. This was just one more thing, in Sanders’ telling, that sapped Trump’s confidence.
You can't reconcile these three.  Rather like the two nativity stories which we now easily overlap into one, there are actually irreconcilable differences you have to overlook in order to make these three reasons one coherent reason.

A)  The DOJ told him to do it.  That was the version peddled on the BBC, and no informed person can really believe it, especially in light of Politico's reporting.  But even if you do, then how do you accept

B)  Trump has been thinking about this since January 20?  Except, of course, he asked Comey to stay on, so that bit of revisionist history needs some revising.  It also can't even shake hands with A), because they are fundamentally at odds with each other.  The next one is closer to B, but still leaves A) an orphan:

C)  It all happened last Wednesday.  Or that was the last straw, because Trump had been thinking about this anyway; and then the DOJ rushed in, unbeknownst to Trump, with a memo and a letter denouncing the way Comey had handled the Clinton e-mail investigation, and with that Trump had no choice but to announce the firing ASAP, even as Comey was giving a speech in Los Angeles and before Trump's private bodyguard (!) could deliver the letter to FBI headquarters in D.C.  Which works, except the memo from Rosentstein was dated May 9, 2017.    As was Jeff Sessions' letter to Donald Trump; as was Donald Trump's letter firing James Comey.

So Rosenstein visited the White House on Monday, wrote a three page memo on Tuesday, which caused Jeff Sessions to write a letter on Tuesday, and Donald Trump to write a letter on Tuesday, because time was of the essence and Trump was planning to do this since his inauguration and he made his decision last Wednesday but it wasn't decided until last Monday?  Or was that Tuesday?

See?  Business as usual.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."


What we know from Sally Yates' testimony is that she was fired shortly after telling the White House that Michael Flynn was compromised by his connections to Russia.

Well, we also know Trump attacked Yates' testimony before she testified.  Still, the official reason for firing Ms. Yates was insubordination, so that firing was (probably is) still seen as happenstance.

In the light of that information, review the firing of Press Bharara.  He has no public connection to the Russia investigation, but being the U.S. attorney in New York, having jurisdiction over New York City, he certainly would have been the prosecutor of any investigations involving Trump's business interests in the city.  At the time he was fired, he was investigating Tom Price, Secretary of HHS.  Coincidence?

And the third is James Comey.  Who was bad at his job?  or too good at it?

The Washington Post, New York Times, and NBC confirmed that Comey had just days ago asked the Justice Department’s second in command, Rod Rosenstein, for more resources to support the inquiry into whether members of President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government last year.

Three times is enemy action.

Nixon Redux?


Somebody really doesn't understand what being President of the United States means:

“The President of the United States confers with his team on any number of personnel decisions,” [Kellyanne Conway] said. “You want to question the timing of when he hires, when he fires — it’s inappropriate.”

So we should just applaud the President's every decision, and never question any of them?  And replacing the director of the FBI when the FBI is investigating the conduct of the President's campaign, is just a "personnel decision"?  We aren't talking about the White House janitor, here.  Aside from that, there is the question every murder mystery asks:  "What was the motive?"

“Basically [Trump] is saying, ‘I’m firing Comey for doing the things that got me elected because I’m afraid people are going to find out who did the rest of the things to get me elected’,” the [senior law enforcement] official said.
....
The official is certainly not convinced that Trump was disturbed by Comey’s departure from the usual Department of Justice protocol in his pursuit of the president’s political opponent.

“If that’s the case, then why the f—- did you wait five and a half months to fire him?” the official asked. “The real reason is he’s inching closer to Trump. He’s getting uncomfortably close to people who are uncomfortably close.”
And in slightly other news:

Meanwhile, an official who was at FBI headquarters on Tuesday tried to joke off the late afternoon shock, asking: “Does the president have the power to fire the FBI director?”

He answered: “President Putin can fire anybody. If Putin can put Trump in the White House, he can get rid of the FBI director."
Is that too harsh?  Really?  The President wrote three tweets to deride a sitting Senator of the United States:

And there is a spreadsheet of all the Twitter responses from Congress about this firing.  A quick scan reveals Democratic responses exceed Republican ones by a wide margin.  There are 18 GOP responses, by my count, 168 from Democrats.  A few GOP responses are critical, more are supportive, but by and large, Republicans are silent.  Even among the 18, most are anodyne references to a carefully prepared statement.

I suppose if this were happening in another country they'd be more emboldened. 

Once as farce.....

It's helpful to have a quick summary of how we got here:



Or, if you prefer (like me) a written summary:

Here's what we know for sure.
In July 2016, the FBI launched an investigation into the various ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. The bureau soon acquired a warrant to spy on Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy adviser with longstanding financial ties to the Kremlin. After Trump’s election, the investigation took on considerably more urgency — with Comey personally approving more scrutiny, according to the Guardian.

In December, Sen. John McCain personally handed Comey a dossier from a former British spy, Christopher Steele, alleging that the Russians had compromising material on Trump and that the Trump campaign actively coordinated with Russian hackers targeting Clinton. By early January, the FBI had confirmed that Steele’s sources were credible and its contents could not be dismissed, forcing them to brief both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents.

The FBI’s investigations took on new urgency after Trump took office, and the Trump administration kept stepping on rakes when it came to Russia. That’s when the Flynn-Kislyak scandal broke and when Sessions lied under oath about his own contacts with the ambassador during the campaign, which forced him to recuse himself from supervising the Russia investigation in early March.

Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had, at this point, started their own investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 election. On March 20, Comey was called to testify before the House Intelligence Committee — chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes — about the status of the FBI’s investigation. That’s when he dropped his biggest bombshell yet.

“[The FBI is] investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts,” Comey said.

After this announcement, it became impossible — regardless of what Trump said in Tuesday’s letter — to separate the FBI’s investigation into Russia from an investigation into the president. Clearly, Director Comey had given consent and support for an investigation into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. You simply can’t look into whether close Trump associates had improper contact with Russia without looking into the question of whether the president approved their actions. It would also come back to the core issue from Watergate: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

Two days after Comey’s testimony, it became clear that the FBI’s investigation was extremely serious. CNN reported that “the FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.” This information came from “human intelligence, travel, business and phone records, and accounts of in-person meetings.”

The information, CNN’s reporters cautioned, “was not conclusive.” But the point is that it was already pointing in a direction that could implicate Trump officials. If that happened — if the FBI actually uncovered hard proof that the Trump campaign had coordinated with the Russians — it would end up being the kind of scandal that topples a presidency.

By early April, the FBI investigation into Russia had gotten so massive that the bureau had to form a special unit for it in Washington. Meanwhile, the House investigation had stalled out due to Nunes’s weird insistence on backing up Trump’s wild claims about Obama spying on Trump Tower (which would eventually force Nunes to recuse himself). The Senate investigation, only given limited funding and staff, was proceeding slowly — to the point where senators were publicly complaining about the pace.

The point of all of this is simple: The FBI was conducting by far the most serious investigation into Trump and Russia in the country, one that simply couldn’t be matched by Congress or by journalists. The bureau had the money, the trained investigators, and the access to powerful surveillance tools. Perhaps most importantly, it also had a director who seemed to be entirely behind the investigation.

And then Trump and Sessions fired him.
Rachel adds that Sally Yates was fired shortly after she insisted there was a problem with Michael Flynn, a problem connected to Russia.  Ostensibly she was fired for refusing to defend the first Muslim ban in court; but more and more it seems matters weren't nearly as simple and clear-cut as that.

And yes, this firing is about the Russia investigation:

President Donald Trump weighed firing his FBI director for more than a week. When he finally pulled the trigger Tuesday afternoon, he didn't call James Comey. He sent his longtime private security guard to deliver the termination letter in a manila folder to FBI headquarters.

He had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn’t disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.

And that business about "cryin' Chuck Schumer"?  Yeah, expect to hear more of that from Trump:

But the fallout seemed to take the White House by surprise. Trump made a round of calls around 5 p.m., asking for support from senators. White House officials believed it would be a "win-win" because Republicans and Democrats alike have problems with the FBI director, one person briefed on their deliberations said.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told him he was making a big mistake — and Trump seemed "taken aback," according to a person familiar with the call.

By Tuesday evening, the president was watching the coverage of his decision and frustrated no one was on TV defending him, a White House official said. He wanted surrogates out there beating the drum.
Instead, advisers were attacking each other for not realizing the gravity of the situation as events blew up. "How are you not defending your position for three solid hours on TV?" the White House aide said.

Two White House officials said there was little communications strategy in handling the firing, and that staffers were given talking points late Tuesday for hastily arranged media appearances. Aides soon circulated previous quotes from Schumer hitting Comey. After Schumer called for a special prosecutor, the White House huddled in press secretary Sean Spicer's office to devise a strategy and sent "fresh faces" to TV, one White House official said.
Kellyanne Conway was as mendacious and destructive of her position as anyone I've ever seen.

And then there's this:

The FBI director now joins acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as senior law enforcement officials who have been fired by Trump. While in office, Comey and Yates oversaw most of the tentacles of the investigative octopus looking into the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, and potential Russia ties. Bharara reportedly handled some parts of that octopus, too, and also would have exercised jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York over the Trump Organization. The seniority of these officials, and their potential investigatory relationship to Trump, suggests the most apt comparison here is to the “Saturday Night Massacre” initiated in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to try and block the Watergate investigation.

Concerns about the Russian investigation aren't going away; they are just getting started.  There are such clear grounds for impeachment here it's not even funny.  Trump had better hope he holds on to the Congress in 2018.

Full Presidential Meltdown

If it wasn't clear before, the President of the United States is losing it.






And as best I can figure out, this:


Is what he's talking about:

Yeah, Roger Stone is as clueless as Donald Trump.  That's not comforting.

Res ipsa loquitur.

They certainly are this clumsy


omahgawd he's gonna redeem Nixon!

Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

I think the bigger point on that is, “My gosh, Tucker, when are they gonna let that go?” It’s been going on for nearly a year. Frankly, it’s kinda getting absurd. There’s nothing there. We’ve heard that time and time again. We’ve heard it in the testimonies earlier this week. We’ve heard it for the last 11 months. There is no there there. It’s time to move on.
Comey's gone, nothin' to see here, why are we still talking about this?!  Is there a connection between Comey's firing and this desire to move on?   How could there be?

“Were these investigations getting too close to home for the president?” Schumer asked, at a last minute press conference organized Tuesday evening.

Of course not!  It was "not a cover up."

“In fact, the President makes very clear in his letter the fact that Mr. Comey on at least three occasions assured the President that he is not under investigation,” [Kellyanne Conway] said in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

And you know that's true because Trump said so, in his letter!  Did that actually for-realsies happen?

“That’s between the President of the United States and Director Comey,” Conway responded.

But who cares?  This is so last year!

“I think you’re looking at the wrong set of facts here,” she responded. “In other words you’re going back to the campaign. This man is the President of the United States. He acted decisively today.”

Unlike the set of facts that Trump relied on, events that occurred before the election.  That's the right set of facts for him, but the wrong set of facts to question his action.  See?  Besides, it's all Chuck Schumer's fault!

(Yes, they're really gonna go there.  What choice do they have?)  So why's Schumer whining now?  Truthiness will win out!  Because I bet you didn't know this!


If I didn't know it was fake, I'd believe it was real.

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

The Long Dark Night of the National Soul

I was going to attach this statement from Rep. John Lewis to the prior post, but there's so much more already I'm starting anew.  First. Rep. Lewis:

“Congress needs to have immediate emergency hearings to obtain testimony directly from Attorney General Sessions, the deputy attorney general, and FBI Director Comey. The White House was already covering up for Michael Flynn by refusing to provide a single document to Congress, and now the President fired the one independent person who was doing the most to investigate President Trump and his campaign over allegations of coordination with Russia. It is mindboggling that the Attorney General – who claimed to have recused himself – was directly involved in the decision to fire Director Comey according to the White House itself. There is now a crisis of confidence at the Justice Department, and President Trump is not being held accountable because House Republicans refuse to work with us to do our job.   Congress must restore credibility, accountability, and transparency to this investigation and finally pass legislation to create a truly independent commission.”
The Congressional Democratic response is just as strong:








Josh Marshall says:

We are now hearing word from White House officials that the White House is stunned at the backlash at Comey’s firing. Didn’t Democrats think he was doing a bad job? We’re even hearing commentators speculate that maybe this may have been a huge miscalculation. The White House didn’t realize how big a deal this was. In the final analysis I think this will be judged a major miscalculation – just not in the sense they mean. Frankly, no one is that naive. It doesn’t wash.

Naive?  No.  Incompetent?  Yes.



Now we'll see what Congress does....

The hits just keep on comin'



It would be, if they weren't so incompetent:

The one thing that may save us from a Trumpian dictatorship is that they're so transcendentally bad at it. If you're keeping score at home, there is an ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation into alleged collusion between the president*'s campaign and the Russian government. Late Tuesday, the president* fired the director of the FBI at the recommendation of the attorney general of the United States, who already has recused himself from the investigation because of his involvement in said campaign. Mother of god, these people are morons.

Not that that's a comfort:

So we are to believe, especially if we are all morons, that Comey was fired because of the administration's dissatisfaction with the activities that, more than anything else, helped make the administration possible. And I am the Tsar of all the Russias.

Can't anybody play this game? I will take any bet in any amount that we will have a special prosecutor looking into the Russia business by midsummer at the latest. Otherwise, I don't know who will take the job. The entire DOJ—including the FBI—is now hopelessly compromised. And yes, I dread the very thought of who these clowns might appoint—Rudy Giuliani? Chris Christie? Sheriff Clarke? Bo Dietl?—but that seems a secondary concern right now. At present, we're governed by people in a frenzy to cover their own asses. Nobody's hands are on the wheel.
I think we will, too (have a special prosecutor sooner rather than later).  I also don't think that's the solution to all our problems.  I think only a change of Congress will push us towards that.

Well, that and resurrecting Lowell Weicker and a few other people from 1973......

Apres vous, le deluge



Helter skelter.  Look out, 'cause here it comes:



This one really smells:

It is, to put it mildly, extremely uncharacteristic of the Trump administration to take a stand on behalf of the opponent the president still occasionally calls “Crooked Hillary.” While there’s no other issue mentioned in Rosenstein’s memo, the FBI also has an ongoing investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Comey confirmed the existence of such an investigation in March. The Trump administration has been extremely eager to dispel any hint of wrongdoing or collusion. In President Trump’s letter firing Comey, he says he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that Trump himself is not under investigation; that reference could be a stray bit of Trumpian humor, or a hint that Comey ran afoul of the president for reasons that have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.


That was quite enough attention on Sally Yates


“What does it matter to the Justice Department if one White House official lies to another?”


Look! Over there!  No, really, look!!

Because it's not about governance; it's only about power.  And as long as the power flows, the obligations of governance are irrelevant.

Elections have consequences.  I was listening to a discussion about judges in America; how many state judges are elected, how Europeans find this perplexing.  The political culture of Europe is rooted in the experience of monarchy:  judges were not independent so much as they were part of the Crown.  Judges in Europe are, by and large, appointed, usually by some judicial council that oversees the judges and their function.  It is a logical extension of the history of monarchy.  America has no such history, indeed takes pride in throwing off all vestiges of monarchical rule (and so we still squabble about "small government" and "States rights", which aren't exclusively euphemisms for racist rule).  So we elect judges (in Texas we elect everyone from Municipal Court to the State Supreme Court; it's a long ballot of judges), because the people are the monarch.

But, of course, the people are also the mob.  There's a reason Federal judges are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for life.  There's a reason judges are elected, especially in the post-Reconstruction South, and face re-election on a regular basis, and it's not just "politics."

That system works as long as at least lip-service is paid to creating a functioning government, which depends upon a functioning judiciary (something the Senate, through the offices of Mitch McConnell, endangered for 8 years under Barack Obama.  There's a reason Trump needs to fill 120 judgeships, and it ain't because Obama didn't feel like vetting anybody.).  Classic depictions of corrupt politicians always turn on people who are more interested in power than in governance.

Now we have a White House and a Congress which are only interested in power.  The people realize this:  that's why there are so many contentious town hall meetings since November.  But elections have consequences.

And for at least the next four years, in the White House and probably in at least one house of Congress, it will still be about power, and governance be damned.  If one White House official lies to another, who cares, so long as power is not impeded?

The title, by the way, was the statement of the White House counsel Donald McGahn to Sally Yates, shortly before she was fired.

Dark for dark deeds, as Tolkien's dwarves told Bilbo.  We have to remember that sunlight is an antiseptic, and the tweets of the President are not only daft, but dangerous.

Anachronism: it's not just for breakfast anymore


This is another reason I've never been that excited about The Handmaid's Tale.  No, it's not because I'm mad for patriarchy.  I'm actually passionate about the basilea tou theou, where the first of all is last and servant of all (something I don't think the author of the article that inspired this post would be too keen about). It's rather because the story gives rise to so much, well:  stupidity.

Like this:

If The Handmaid’s Tale offers any sign, Margaret Atwood has read more of her Bible than many Christians. Superficially, Atwood’s dystopian novel is littered with biblical names and phrases: Gilead, Mary and Martha, Jezebel, Milk and Honey, All Flesh, Loaves and Fishes, Lilies of the Field, the Eye of the Lord, Behemoth, and many more.

I do recognize all those references (and can give you the Biblical references if we had the time, some faster than others), and it's not because I went to seminary.  Biblical literacy used to be something of a given among Christians.  My wife knew the scriptures better than I did before seminary, because she attended a different church as a child than I did.  Biblical literacy was taught, and then it wasn't.  So I guess now many Christians, especially the ones attending mega-churches where the Bible seems to be an afterthought (did I mention my worship service always included four scripture readings?  The Hebrew Scriptures (a/k/a the "Old Testament"), a Psalm, an epistle reading, and the gospel reading.  Small wonder a member of my first church complained that I talked too much about the Bible.), are as oblivious to those references as Ms. Taricot assumes we all are.  Margaret Atwood's knowledge of the Bible is frankly no better than mine even before I took courses in Biblical scholarship and exegesis.

And then what is done with this "nollij"?  Well, let me give you the topic sentences:

1. Men properly hold the highest positions of authority in society and the family. 

That's why they call it a "patriarchy."  There are a number of Biblical scholars who offer readings of the Scriptures that show a counter-patriarchal narrative, from Genesis to Revelation.

2. Women are assets that belong to men. 

A not uncommon notion in Western culture until about 100 years ago.  It's within my lifetime that divorce became an easier matter, in part because it represented the "property" asserting its personhood, and that wasn't allowed lightly.  Should have been, but it wasn't.

3. Slavery, including sexual slavery, is morally acceptable, regulated and sometimes commanded. 

A common argument for the slave trade in the U.S., until the issue was finally settled by the 13th Amendment.

4. The primary identity and value of women lies in their reproductive capacity. 

Still sadly true, but mostly because only one sex can bear children.  Again, not a good argument, but if you want children at all, it's up to women to get pregnant.  So I'm not sure it's a "Biblical" issue, so much as a human one.

5. Sons are more valuable than daughters. 

Still not an uncommon attitude, and one expressed by atheists like Richard Dawkins.

6. When it comes to breeding, paternity is what matters. 

Interestingly, I understand being a Jew by birth depends upon one's mother, not the father.  That changed for the children of Abraham millennia ago.

7. Infertility is a female issue.

Until modern medicine and anatomy fully understood how the human reproductive system worked, this seemed a given.  The analogy from observation was the man planted "seed" (still a euphemism for semen) in the woman's "ground" (womb).  The female reproductive system is complex and brief (men are fertile far longer, on average), and hidden.

8. Female consent is not a thing. 

It wasn't that long ago a man could not rape his wife.  "Consent" in the sense meant here is a fairly new concept, which is not to say I have anything against it.  But it's anachronistic to think it applies backward from now to the earliest human societies.  Which is not stay all sex was rape, either.  Chaucer's "Miller's Tale" delightfully puts the lie to that notion.

I know the intent here is to identify the roots of these ideas in the Bible, and so condemn the Bible for bad ideas today; but that is, as Charlie Pierce would say, all my balls.  Most of these notions are considered archaic; some are actually outlawed.  Much of what is identified here is peculiar to Western culture, not to Judaism (the article carefully identifies all these ideas, which are linked to references in the Hebrew Scriptures, to the "Christian bible."  We dare not say it is Jewish, too, lest we be labeled anti-semites.  That is the true ignorance, however:  to not recognize how much these ideas are allowed to change over time.  Yes, there are minorities (numerically) who probably cling to many of these ideas as "ordained by God."  But most people don't, and even fewer of them think they are inviolable and must be rigidly enforced (as I say, much has changed in the last 50+ years, but no credit for that, eh?  Always look on the dark side of life, amirite?).

Besides, the premise of Atwood's story is that a catastrophe strikes that radically shrinks the population of the planet, creates an infertility crisis (hence the need for "handmaids") and presumes a society would arise based on a bizarre theocracy the likes of which the world has never known and would hold sway over the remaining population of the United States.  I mean, I suppose it's meant to be some kind of mirror held up to modern society but, frankly, it's a badly cracked mirror that offers more distortion than it does reflection.  Taricot's argument is that, if you pile all these examples up, complete with scriptural references, you get the society Atwood describes in her story.  However, no such society has ever existed, nor has any church or sect of Christianity or Judaism ever espoused a society even remotely resembling Atwood's dystopia.  Atwood, like Taricot, carefully bends her nightmare away from anything to do with Judaism (despite the foundation in their scriptures) and weaves it together from extensions of more severe visions of Protestantism than any Protestant leader has ever proposed (even Westboro Baptist Church is not this bad; even the Shakers, who tried as hard as they could to suppress their sexuality, were not this bad).  And why invent a fictional dystopia that we can then use to bash a straw man, when "maps can't point to places where life is evil now".  Like the state government of New Hampshire, and the internet:

After a recent Daily Beast investigation unmasked New Hampshire State Representative Robert Fisher as the secret creator of the Reddit community known as The Red Pill—one of the internet’s most misogynistic spaces—the two-term Republican resisted calls for his resignation.

As previously reported, throughout 2012, in comments left primarily under the username Pk_atheist in the Red Pill forum he created, Fisher, now 31, described women as having “sub-par intelligence,” suggested that women’s bodies are the only thing that makes their “lackluster” personalities “worth it,” and commonly expressed paranoia about what he perceived as a growing plague of “false rape accusations” supposedly used as a weapon by feminists.

While Fisher did not deny having created The Red Pill, he called his past comments “injudicious,” and suggested he no longer holds the views he once espoused online. Fisher told a local media outlet that he is not currently the moderator of any Reddit forums.

Yet further investigation by The Daily Beast suggests that Fisher may still be very much be an active contributor and chief moderator of The Red Pill, where an alias that appears to belong to him—under the username redpillschool—regularly champions misogynistic views. Fisher’s apparent link to redpillschool has not been previously reported.

Not an imagined dystopia but here and now and making avid use of social media. Admittedly all I know about "Red Pill" I've read at The Daily Beast, but aside from Fisher being described as "the homegrown son of a preacher," I can't find any explicit or implicit connection to the Hebrew Scriptures (excuse me, the "Christian Bible") in support of the blatant misogyny of the site.  And yet "Red Pill's" vision of society makes The Handmaid's Tale look like a children's story.  It is also more likely to be influential than any distorted reading of the Scriptures.

There is a long line of utopian and dystopian futures and places, and it's worth remembering the word "utopia" derives from the Latin for "nowhere."  There is enough evil in the world without inviting more of it to be seen in the world we live in, especially when the vision is so narrow and poorly realized (I mean now the versions of America which Atwood's story supposedly mirrors, but really doesn't).  Indeed, the world of The Handmaid's Tale strikes me as just as likely a vision of a future human society as the radical atheists all fighting each other to assert the purity of their atheism on "South Park."  Strike that; the "South Park" version seems more probable, now that I think of it.

That's gonna leave a mark



It's worth seeing it on video.  Cruz just walks straight into that room full of rakes.  And just to show the awareness of what's going on reaches beyond Josh Marshall:



Trump either thinks bravado will make him "win" the day, or he's too stupid to realize what happened.

Thinking about it this morning, Yates walked Cruz into that trap like a boss.  First she denies any direct knowledge of the statute Cruz mentions; then, when he reads it to her, she turns immediately to the same statute and finishes reading its provisions to him.  She "wasn't familiar" with it, but she just happened to have it at her elbow, and could read from it verbatim.

That's a textbook lesson in how to set up your prey.  Joe Scarborough called it a "hanging curve ball" she hit "470 feet."  Yup.

All that wasted outrage

via GIPHY


Turns out a little information is a useful thing:

"The blasphemy law was carefully crafted in such a way that we would fulfill the constitutional requirement, but on the other hand to make the offence as narrow as impossible… in other words, to make it virtually impossible for a prosecution to be taken,” the former minister told a local radio station.

The statute was only passed in 2009 because the Irish Constitution (of 1937) demands one.  And when a complaint is made, an investigation is required.  However, since not enough people were "outraged," Mr. Fry is free to continue being a prat on Irish television.

Monday, May 08, 2017

Following the bouncing ball....



If you say to yourself, as I do, that such comments as that indicate Trump is a blithering idiot; well, maybe not:

Flynn was only fired because a series of press reports – most specifically one in the Post – revealed his deceptions. There’s every reason to think the White House had no intention of acting until the information became public because of leaks.

This is a critical part of the story. It wasn’t just that the White House didn’t act quickly. There is strong, strong reason to believe they never would have acted on it or dismissed Flynn at all.

There were a series of articles which began on February 9th. The real blockbuster was the article published by the Post on February 13th, which i discussed here. Flynn resigned a short time later. These made Flynn’s continuance in office impossible. He resigned a short time later. We can’t know for certain why Flynn was forced to resign at that moment. But there is every reason to believe that that series of press reports led the White House to fire Flynn. As long as it remained secret, Flynn could stay.
Which explains why Trump is railing about "leaks."  Although leaks are, as former DNI James Clapper explained to the gentleman from Louisiana, only when classified information is released:  "...unclassified is not leaking."

I kinda doubt the information that forced Flynn to resign was classified.

And in response:



Well, except for this:

“The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election, and we all know that’s right,” Franken began during his line of questioning for former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

“One of the questions is why do [Russians] favor Donald Trump?” Franked explained, listing of the many connections between Trump campaign and administration officials and Russian operateives, including Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Rex Tillerson, Jared Kusher and Flynn.

“Now, going to Flynn, he appeared during the campaign on Russia Today. Russia Today is the propaganda arm of the Russian government. General, since you’ve retired have you appeared on Russia Today?”

“No, not wittingly, no,” Clapper replied.

“Okay. And Flynn received $37,000 for sitting next to [Russian president Vladimir] Putin at the tenth anniversary of Russia Today. All this seems very odd to me and raised a lot of questions.”

Yates explained that she brought those concerns directly to the Trump administration, which was confused by why it is “an issue for the Department of Justice if one White House official lies to another.”
Which would explain why everybody is talking about what she said?


Who ya gonna believe?  Me?  Or your lyin' eyes?

People who get security clearances can expect a lot more than surveillance.  People who talk to foreign dignitaries shouldn't be surprised by it at all.

Dance, monkey boy!  Dance!

Why do you think we send them to Washington?


In a memorable speech somewhere in the annals of Rumpole, the British barrister defends his criminal practice with an analogy to a London taxi-cab, a vehicle charged with taking any passenger who will pay, but not held morally culpable for taking a criminal away from the scene of a crime unknowingly.  The other side of that, little noticed by non-lawyers (though Rumpole practiced it scrupulously) is that lawyers are, at least in America, "officers of the court," and are charged with not wasting the court's time on legal arguments even the lawyer knows are baseless and indefensible.

All of which is a way of saying, again, that Sally Yates did the right thing, as she proved again today.

On Capitol Hill to testify before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee investigating Russia’s interference in the U.S. election, Yates was instead pressed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) about her refusal to enforce the Trump administration’s so-called travel ban.

“What is your authority to overrule the Office of Legal Counsel?” Cornyn asked Yates.

Yates said that the Office of Legal Counsel looks only at the face of an executive order to determine “whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful.” She added that the office does not look at statements that may bear on the “intent and purpose” of an executive order, which she did.

“I don’t know how you can say it was lawful and say that it was within your prerogative to refuse the court of law and leave it to the court to decide,” Cornyn said later in the exchange.

“Senator, I did not say it was lawful,” Yates said. “I said it was unlawful.”

Cornyn tried to frame Yates’ decision as a partisan move made by a former Obama administration official that broke with the DOJ’s “longstanding tradition of defending a presidential action in court if there are reasonable arguments in its favor.”

“The civil division of the Department of Justice will defend an action of a President or an action of congress if there is a reasonable argument to be made,” Yates told Cornyn. “But in this instance, all arguments have to be based on truth. Because we’re the Department of Justice. We’re not just a law firm.”

Noting that he voted for her confirmation, Cornyn said he found it “enormously disappointing” that she overruled the Office of Legal Counsel and countermanded the executive order because she “happen[ed] to disagree with it as a policy matter.”

Yates referred back to her 2015 confirmation hearing, recalling an exchange in which then-Alabama senator Jeff Sessions asked if she would decline to act “if the President asked me to do something that was unlawful or unconstitutional and one of your colleagues or even that would reflect poorly on the Department of Justice.”

“I looked at this,” Yates went on. “I made a determination that I believe it was unlawful. I also thought that it was inconsistent with principles of the Department of Justice. And I said no. And that’s what I promised you I would do. That’s what I did.”

She acted like a lawyer, rather than like a toady.  No surprise some people just can't stand that.  And yes, the Senators from Texas are hapless fools.  We know that.  That's why we make them leave Texas for as long as possible.  It's an old political tradition that started with Phil Gramm and John Tower.

And, just because I love a good rant, what Keith Olbermann said.

Arrested Development


"LeCarre-esque" is how the correspondent for BBC World Service described the picture painted by testimony before the Senate today, including what Sally Yates had to say.  Then this can only be described as Strangelovian:

President Donald Trump last month stirred up controversy when he said that South Korea should be the country that foots the bill for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), a missile defense system that’s a key deterrent against North Korea.

However, Trump was quickly contradicted publicly by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who rushed to assure the Korean government that the United States would pay to install THAAD.

According to a new report from Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, Trump was absolutely furious about this and chewed out his own national security adviser during a heated phone conversation.

“Trump was livid, according to three White House officials, after reading in the Wall Street Journal that McMaster had called his South Korean counterpart to assure him that the president’s threat to make that country pay for a new missile defense system was not official policy,” Lake writes. “These officials say Trump screamed at McMaster on a phone call, accusing him of undercutting efforts to get South Korea to pay its fair share.”

Not even in fiction has there been a POTUS as dangerously incompetent as Donald J. Trump.  Outside of comedy (and even then, not even the blackest of comedies; Merkin Muffley is a comic character, but he's not the ignorant prat the current POTUS is), no one would accept the fiction that America could elect a boob like Trump.  The man hasn't the first inkling of how to conduct diplomatic discussions, or how governments work together.  He imagines he is a CEO who determines the "deal," when the placement of missiles like THAAD is a complex arrangement involving several branches of several governments, and not just the tactics of a wrecking ball.  It's not that he screamed at his National Security Advisor (he clearly doesn't understand the duties of that position, based on the testimony the BBC reported on); it's that he thinks he has a winning strategy.  It is as if everything he learned, he learned on a school playground.

Speaking of Ms. Yates, I'll just drop this here rather than put up yet another post.  The interrogator is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a man supposedly renowned for his abilities before the Supreme Court as Texas' first Solicitor-General:

Cruz argued that the Office of Legal Counsel had issued a determination that the order was legal, but Yates said that finding ignored the First Amendment in favor of an obscure statute that had since been updated.

“In this particular instance, particularly where we were talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom, not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religion freedom, it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president’s actions and the intent is laid out in his statements,” Yates said.

Which, I pause to note, is what the courts have done in ruling against Trump's travel bans; reviewed the intent expressed in the President's statements.  We continue:


Cruz then tried to trip her up by suggesting her actions were extraordinary.

“In the over 200 years of the Department of Justice history, are you aware of any instance in which the Department of Justice has formally approved the legality of a policy and three days later the attorney general has directed the department not to follow that policy and to defy that policy?” Cruz said.

Yates delivered the final blow by accusing the Office of Legal Counsel of violating longstanding norms.

“I’m not, but I’m also not aware of a situation where the Office of Legal Counsel was advised not to tell the attorney general about it until after it was over,” Yates said.

Charlie Pierce was right; do not f*ck with Sally Yates.

Mama, don't let your babies grow up to write prequels.....


The origins of this post was a long disquisition (now lost to posterity!  O, the humanities!) about the problem of exposition and the danger in science-fiction/fantasy of the "need to explain."   It morphed into what ultimately got published, but I cut down trees to make that, and the stumps stayed behind.

I grew up on  science-fiction and fantasy fiction, and I quickly decided the best work didn't explain what happened (like Bradbury's story "Chrysalis," where a man bursts out a a cocoon he's spun 'round himself, only to emerge apparently unchanged.  When the friends who've been watching him for weeks during this unexplained metamorphosis leave him alone, he walks out of the building he's been in all that time, tests his wings, and takes to the air.  End of story.  Those looking for an explanation, in Mr. Twain's felicitous warning about morals in Huckleberry Finn, will be shot.).  Better to let the story happen, in many cases.  It's not, after all, a murder mystery.

And so my praise for Alien, in the lost original and in what got posted, was for its failure to explain.  The movie title said it all:  the creature was "alien;"  not us, inimicable to us, a perfect killing machine.  What else did you need to know?  Where it came from, why it existed?  Why the pilot?  Why that ship?  The universe can contain frightful mysteries, and we aren't going to solve them all.

Certainly not what "Prometheus" had to tell us.

I based my critique on the trailers I'd seen, and the experience of "Prometheus."  Sadly, it appears I was right:

And while the characters might realize they made a mistake relatively quickly, the film is not quick in getting to that point. "Alien: Covenant" is criminally backloaded, with almost an hour going by before the crew lands on the planet and another half-hour or so after that before the thrills start to really kick in. In that long slog of exposition, you spend a lot of time with the new characters but still manage not to learn much about them.

Now there are two different problems here.  A Shakespearean tragedy doesn't up the body count until Act 5.  "Hamlet" moves things along with the death of Polonious, and then of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (albeit offstage, in that case) and then the death of Ophelia (off-stage again), but the corpses don't pile the stage until the final scene.  So leaving the action to the end it not, per se, a narrative no-no.  But too much exposition dulls the story, and taking 90 minutes just to set up the victims of the slaughter is, well, bad story-telling, to say the least.

Everything that follows pads the mythology about the title xenomorph, driven primarily by an oddly unmotivated and slightly confusing plot involving Michael Fassbender’s android character from the first film, David, and a second android on the Covenant, named Walter. Fassbender is great in both roles, but the character’s stories demystify everything that made those aliens so terrifying in the first place. So "Alien: Covenant" gets rid of everything good about "Prometheus" and takes all the mystery of "Alien" away. It basically makes both films worse.

Well, you can't make "Prometheus" any worse, but taking the mystery of "Alien" away is a crime against art.  Still, kinda what I expected from "Covenant."  Oh well, at least we have "Guardians of the Galaxy 2."  And "Wonder Woman."  Even if all the good parts of that are in the trailer (and I refuse to believe that; Gal Gadot stole "Batman v. Superman" away from the titular characters), there's always the Wonder Woman theme.

An instant classic.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to make Rick Perry look smart....


Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Sunday signed into law a bill that would ban sanctuary cities in Texas and allow police officers to ask anyone they detain about their immigration status.

“As Governor, my top priority is public safety, and this bill furthers that objective by keeping dangerous criminals off our streets,” Abbott said in a statement announcing that he signed the bill. “It’s inexcusable to release individuals from jail that have been charged with heinous crimes like sexual assault against minors, domestic violence and robbery. There are deadly consequences to not enforcing the law, and Texas has now become a state where those practices are not tolerated. With this bill we are doing away with those that seek to promote lawlessness in Texas.”

The bill establishes misdemeanor penalties for any local police officer who does not aid federal law enforcement in detaining undocumented immigrants. If a local law enforcement entity declines to help federal officials, they would face a fine between $1,000 and $25,500.

The legislation, which is set to take effect Sept. 1, also includes an amendment that allows police officers to ask someone about their immigration status when they are detained.

I'm speculating idly here, but which County Attorney or DA is going to prosecute police officers for not aiding federal law enforcement in detaining undocumented immigrants?  In most of the major Texas counties, the sheriff (an elected official, like the DA or the County Attorney), is responsible for the jail.  Most jail systems are overcrowded already, and the big complaint against ICE is that they ask for a prisoner to be "detained", even if they aren't under arrest by the State, until they can get there.

And then they don't "get there" any too quickly.  And the county pays the bills to hold this suspect, and gives up space to them, etc.  If there is an argument against this law, other than the one made by David Hughes and Art Acevedo:

“We officers work extremely hard to build and maintain trust, communication, and stronger relationships with minority communities through community based policing and outreach programs,” they wrote. “Broad rules, such as those imposed by SB 4, that push local law enforcement to take a more active role in immigration enforcement will further strain the relationship between local law enforcement and these diverse communities.”

“Officers would start inquiring about the immigration status of every person they come in contact with, or worse, inquire about the immigration status of people based on their appearance,” they continued. “This will lead to distrust of police and less cooperation from members of the community. And it will foster the belief that people cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being subjected to an immigration status investigation.”
It's the argument of practical economics.

So, police officers face fines as of September 1?  And who is going to enforce that against them?  In Travis County the sheriff won election promising to act like a "sanctuary" county (sheriff's are county, not city, officials).  Will the Sheriff be fined under this law?  Not real likely, is it?  And as for Abbott's bloody shirt waving (“It’s inexcusable to release individuals from jail that have been charged with heinous crimes like sexual assault against minors, domestic violence and robbery."), how dare he imply that's happening?  So, what Gov., our police officers and sheriff's deputies aren't arresting violent criminals?  Our jails are overcrowded with, what?  Jaywalkers?  The Texas Observer says the law provides for jail time as well as fines, so the crowded jails that can't hold the violent criminals will be stuffed with:  police officers?

And as for checking immigration status:  that'll be a laugh riot in a city as cosmopolitan as Houston.  Will they go by accents?  It's a better indicator than skin color.

Yeah, I can see this law making BIG changes in Texas.  Or not.....

The President is a Dangerous Ignoramus



“The president is a little confused this morning, he’s giving me some humor at 5:00 a.m. pacific time,” Mudd said of Trump’s tweet. “The White House doesn’t give security clearances. Individual agencies give security clearance…He doesn’t have any for the security clearance. As you’re suggesting, the issue here is whether the [Trump] White House had an ethics process for an incoming official. Typically, what you would do is say list your sources of income, list what you have been doing over the last year, list conversations you’re having about representative employment so you would know when you’re sitting down for a sensitive conversation in the White House about sanctions whether somebody around the table took money from Russia. There was an ethics conversation that the White House should have started.”

It was Flynn that didn’t disclose the information that he should have and Mudd is blaming Flynn for ignoring the rules.

“And also, we don’t have to speculate,” CNN’s Chris Cuomo cut in. “It’s not about, well, what did the White House– We know they knew. It will be the heart of the testimony from the former acting attorney general today, Sally Yates. She told them about this in January and there was a Wall Street Journal report. Weeks went by where the White House knew and apparently did nothing until they decided to throw Flynn under the bus. It isn’t ‘if,’ it’s a ‘why.'”

“When a Justice Department official goes to warn you in the White House that your security adviser is having inappropriate conversations with the Russians — that’s not a heads up. I don’t care how you characterize it,” Mudd continued. “So, I want to know what the urgency of the warning was. I want to know if it was persistent over time. I want to know if there was some background on why she thought the relationship between the Russians and the Trump campaign was so substantial. The one thing I’m watching for is she was privy to an investigation conducted by the FBI. She has to be careful talking about Gen. Flynn personally because it is the subject of an ongoing investigation but her responsibility to keep her access to that investigation private.”


"It just shows how much the norms of behavior have changed,” Toobin said. “The idea of the President of the United States essentially threatening a witness, he’s basically accusing her of leaking, we have never had that before. We’ve never had presidents who did this kind of thing. The idea that the president — the guy who’s in charge of the Justice Department — is threatening a witness is really kind of disturbing.”*

QED.

*Maybe if we change the composition of the House and Senate in 2018, things will change.