crooksandliars--2020-02-09--Trump’s Presidential Medal Of Freedom Choices Say A Lot About Him

E. Fletcher McClellan , Elizabethtown College ; Christopher Devine , University of Dayton , and Kyle C. Kopko , Elizabethtown College President Donald Trump awarded his 15th Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh on Feb. 4 .
This award was notable for two reasons .
First , it was controversial because Limbaugh is a polarizing political figure .
And second , this marked the first time that any president awarded a Medal of Freedom during a State of the Union address .
Typically , Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremonies occur once or twice per year and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the achievements of various people who have made an important contribution to U.S. culture .
Because the president selects recipients with total discretion – American or otherwise , living or dead – this award also says a lot about the president himself .
What achievements or contributions does the president consider important ?
What groups of people most easily win his favor ?
And how does he hope to shape his legacy , judging by the company that he chooses to keep ?
To find out , we ’ ve analyzed every Presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidents who awarded them – including Trump .
What is the Presidential Medal of Freedom ?
The award was established by President John F. Kennedy , in 1963 , to recognize “ any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to ( 1 ) the security or national interests of the United States , or ( 2 ) world peace , or ( 3 ) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
” As a unilateral power of the executive branch , presidents have broad discretion to choose recipients .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political purposes – to gain positive media attention , shape their legacy or reward their supporters .
Our research shows that the politicization of the medal has increased over time .
Before 1981 , Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremonies were sporadic , and recognized only about five recipients at a time .
This changed when President Ronald Reagan – a media-savvy , former Hollywood actor – began hosting large ceremonies designed to maximize public attention .
President Barack Obama has since raised the bar .
In one ceremony in 2016 , he awarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Jordan and entertainers like Bruce Springsteen .
In fact , Obama holds the record for awarding the most medals in total : 115 .
That ’ s about 14 per year , on average .
Decisions about who gets a medal often depend on whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican , but this isn ’ t always the case .
For instance , presidents from both parties often pick politicians and public servants .
Obama awarded his last Presidential Medal of Freedom to his vice president , Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Orrin Hatch , the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia , and conservative economist Arthur Laffer .
Not surprisingly , these awards usually go to a president ’ s political allies .
We also see clear partisan differences .
For instance , Democratic presidents are more likely to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to civil rights leaders , labor organizers and people of color .
Republicans are more likely to bestow the medal on military leaders , white people and conservative editors and pundits .
In other words , presidents tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of their party ’ s key constituency groups .
President Trump ’ s first round of medals was unusual in at least one respect : He waited 20 months to award them , longer than any other president .
This is surprising for a president who enjoys commanding the media ’ s attention and exercising unilateral executive power .
Since that time , Trump has awarded the Medal of Freedom eight times – with each ceremony or occasion honoring a single recipient .
Trump ’ s selections differ markedly from his predecessors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – eight out of 15 – have been athletes .
In previous administrations , athletes constituted about 4 % of all Medal of Freedom recipients .
And while Trump ’ s selections of Rush Limbaugh as well as GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson – also a doctor and philanthropist – have been controversial , he is hardly the first president to award the nation ’ s highest civilian honor to a prominent political supporter .
Obama , for one , awarded the medal to Oprah Winfrey – who gave him a key endorsement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to Democratic activists such as Barbra Streisand and Bruce Springsteen .
But the sheer size and scope of Adelson ’ s political contributions – more than US $ 113 million in combination with her husband , Sheldon – differentiates her from past recipients .
And perhaps no recipient has been as controversial or politically polarizing as Limbaugh .
Who will Trump pick next ?
Trump ’ s future selections will tell us even more about who he is and what legacy he wants to leave as president .
In fact , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump might use his medal selections to associate himself with cultural icons not yet claimed by other presidents .
Why not “ the great presidents ” – think George Washington ?
Or great inventors – think George Washington Carver ?
If Donald Trump ’ s mission is to “ Make America Great Again , ” the Presidential Medal of Freedom may be our best indication of what greatness looks like to him .
Editor ’ s note : This is an updated version of a story originally published on Nov. 16 , 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read ?
Want more ?
Sign up for The Conversation ’ s daily newsletter . ]
E. Fletcher McClellan , Professor of Political Science , Elizabethtown College ; Christopher Devine , Assistant Professor of Political Science , University of Dayton , and Kyle C. Kopko , Associate Professor of Political Science , Elizabethtown College This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Rush Limbaugh reacts as President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address. AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
E. Fletcher McClellan, Elizabethtown College; Christopher Devine, University of Dayton, and Kyle C. Kopko, Elizabethtown College
President Donald Trump awarded his 15th Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh on Feb. 4.
This award was notable for two reasons. First, it was controversial because Limbaugh is a polarizing political figure. And second, this marked the first time that any president awarded a Medal of Freedom during a State of the Union address.
Typically, Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremonies occur once or twice per year and provide Americans with an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of various people who have made an important contribution to U.S. culture. Because the president selects recipients with total discretion – American or otherwise, living or dead – this award also says a lot about the president himself.
What achievements or contributions does the president consider important? What groups of people most easily win his favor? And how does he hope to shape his legacy, judging by the company that he chooses to keep?
To find out, we’ve analyzed every Presidential Medal of Freedom ever awarded, and the presidents who awarded them – including Trump.
What is the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
The award was established by President John F. Kennedy, in 1963, to recognize “any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”
As a unilateral power of the executive branch, presidents have broad discretion to choose recipients. But presidents often use the award for political purposes – to gain positive media attention, shape their legacy or reward their supporters.
Our research shows that the politicization of the medal has increased over time. Before 1981, Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremonies were sporadic, and recognized only about five recipients at a time.
This changed when President Ronald Reagan – a media-savvy, former Hollywood actor – began hosting large ceremonies designed to maximize public attention. President Barack Obama has since raised the bar. In one ceremony in 2016, he awarded 20 medals to recipients including athletes like Michael Jordan and entertainers like Bruce Springsteen. In fact, Obama holds the record for awarding the most medals in total: 115. That’s about 14 per year, on average.
Who gets a medal?
Decisions about who gets a medal often depend on whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican, but this isn’t always the case. For instance, presidents from both parties often pick politicians and public servants.
Obama awarded his last Presidential Medal of Freedom to his vice president, Joe Biden.
President Trump has honored former Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and conservative economist Arthur Laffer. Not surprisingly, these awards usually go to a president’s political allies.
We also see clear partisan differences. For instance, Democratic presidents are more likely to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to civil rights leaders, labor organizers and people of color. Republicans are more likely to bestow the medal on military leaders, white people and conservative editors and pundits.
In other words, presidents tend to award Presidential Medals of Freedom to members of their party’s key constituency groups.
President Trump’s picks
President Trump’s first round of medals was unusual in at least one respect: He waited 20 months to award them, longer than any other president. This is surprising for a president who enjoys commanding the media’s attention and exercising unilateral executive power.
Since that time, Trump has awarded the Medal of Freedom eight times – with each ceremony or occasion honoring a single recipient.
Trump’s selections differ markedly from his predecessors in that a majority of his recipients – eight out of 15 – have been athletes. In previous administrations, athletes constituted about 4% of all Medal of Freedom recipients.
And while Trump’s selections of Rush Limbaugh as well as GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson – also a doctor and philanthropist – have been controversial, he is hardly the first president to award the nation’s highest civilian honor to a prominent political supporter.
Obama, for one, awarded the medal to Oprah Winfrey – who gave him a key endorsement in the 2008 primaries. He also awarded it to Democratic activists such as Barbra Streisand and Bruce Springsteen.
But the sheer size and scope of Adelson’s political contributions – more than US$113 million in combination with her husband, Sheldon – differentiates her from past recipients. And perhaps no recipient has been as controversial or politically polarizing as Limbaugh.
Who will Trump pick next?
Trump’s future selections will tell us even more about who he is and what legacy he wants to leave as president. In fact, if these first awards are any indication, Trump might use his medal selections to associate himself with cultural icons not yet claimed by other presidents.
What’s next, then?
Why not “the great presidents” – think George Washington? Or great inventors – think George Washington Carver?
If Donald Trump’s mission is to “Make America Great Again,” the Presidential Medal of Freedom may be our best indication of what greatness looks like to him.
Editor’s note: This is an updated version of a story originally published on Nov. 16, 2018.
[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]
E. Fletcher McClellan, Professor of Political Science, Elizabethtown College; Christopher Devine, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Dayton, and Kyle C. Kopko, Associate Professor of Political Science, Elizabethtown College
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


crooksandliars--2020-02-09--Lindsey Graham: Rudy Giuliani Is Still Digging Biden Dirt For Bill Barr

Remember that whole `` impeachment thing '' where Donald Trump was actually impeached ( and then not exonerated ) for withholding military aid to Ukraine until they put out a statement that they were investigating Hunter Biden , the son of Trump 's potential Presidential rival , Joe Biden ?
Well , if anyone ( cough Susan Collins cough ) thought Donald Trump learned anything from his acquittal ( not exoneration ) just 4 days ago , they were wrong .
Just this morning , Lindsey Graham was on Face the Nation and told Margaret Brennan that Rudy `` the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine and that Graham is encouraging him to turn that information over to Bill Barr at the DOJ .
Here is what he said : SEN. GRAHAM : So Rudy Giuliani last night said he 's got the goods on Hunter Biden .
I called the attorney general this morning and Richard Burr , the chairman of the Intel Committee , and they told me take very cautiously anything coming out of the Ukraine against anybody ...
But if Rudy Giuliani has any information coming out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the Department of Justice because it could be Russian propaganda .
MARGARET BRENNAN : You last time you 're on this program now in December , you said Giuliani should come to the Judiciary Committee with what he said was a suitcase full of documents he picked up in Ukraine on the Bidens .
Are you saying you do n't want any part of this anymore ?
SEN. GRAHAM : After talking to the attorney general and the intelligence chairman that any documents coming out of the Ukraine against any American , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked at by the intelligence services , who has expertise I do n't because Russia is playing us all like a fiddle .
Oh .
And Bill `` Donald Trump 's Personal Lawyer '' Barr 's involvement is explained a little bit more : MARGARET BRENNAN : Can you clarify ?
You said you talked to Attorney General Barr -- MARGARET BRENNAN : -- this morning .
Has the Department of Justice been ordered to investigate the Bidens ?
SEN. GRAHAM : No .
The Department of Justice is receiving information coming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GRAHAM : -- to see .
He told me that they 've created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it 's verified .
Rudy Giuliani is a well known man .
He 's a crime fighter .
He 's loyal to the president .
He 's a good lawyer .
But what I 'm trying to say- to the president and anybody else , that the Russians are still up to it .
Deterrence is not working .
So let 's look at Hunter Biden 's conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vice President Biden , what did you do when they told you your son was on Burisma 's board ?
It undercuts your ability to fight corruption .
Did you take it seriously ?
Obviously he did n't .
But when it comes to documents coming out of the Ukraine , to Republicans and Democrats , be very cautious turning -- Then Brennan gets right to it .
Why is Giuliani being sent on an opposition research search on the taxpayer dollar ?
Literally the definition of a personal political investigation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it benefits Donald Trump .
MARGARET BRENNAN : But- I understand that .
However , when you 're talking about being asked to do these things in a channel being open between Rudy Giuliani and the Justice Department , this sounds a lot like this is in some ways a taxpayer funded oppo-research operation against Joe Biden .
Is n't this exactly what was at the heart of the impeachment probe to begin with ?
SEN. GRAHAM : No , not at all .
Then Brennan asks a great question that many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do n't know who is paying Rudy .
We did n't get an answer as to whether this was a personal political favor .
And clearly Graham thinks nothing that Trump is doing is wrong .
Even though he was literally impeached for it .

Remember that whole "impeachment thing" where Donald Trump was actually impeached (and then not exonerated) for withholding military aid to Ukraine until they put out a statement that they were investigating Hunter Biden, the son of Trump's potential Presidential rival, Joe Biden? Well, if anyone (cough Susan Collins cough) thought Donald Trump learned anything from his acquittal (not exoneration) just 4 days ago, they were wrong.
Just this morning, Lindsey Graham was on Face the Nation and told Margaret Brennan that Rudy "the Mouth" Giuliani continues to try to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine and that Graham is encouraging him to turn that information over to Bill Barr at the DOJ. Here is what he said:
SEN. GRAHAM: So Rudy Giuliani last night said he's got the goods on Hunter Biden. I called the attorney general this morning and Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intel Committee, and they told me take very cautiously anything coming out of the Ukraine against anybody...But if Rudy Giuliani has any information coming out of the Ukraine, he needs to turn over the Department of Justice because it could be Russian propaganda. MARGARET BRENNAN: You last time you're on this program now in December, you said Giuliani should come to the Judiciary Committee with what he said was a suitcase full of documents he picked up in Ukraine on the Bidens. Are you saying you don't want any part of this anymore? SEN. GRAHAM: After talking to the attorney general and the intelligence chairman that any documents coming out of the Ukraine against any American, Republican or Democrat, need to be looked at by the intelligence services, who has expertise I don't because Russia is playing us all like a fiddle.
Oh. And Bill "Donald Trump's Personal Lawyer" Barr's involvement is explained a little bit more:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Can you clarify? You said you talked to Attorney General Barr-- SEN. GRAHAM: This morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: --this morning. Has the Department of Justice been ordered to investigate the Bidens? SEN. GRAHAM: No. The Department of Justice is receiving information coming out of the Ukraine from Rudy-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Already? SEN. GRAHAM: --to see. He told me that they've created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it's verified. Rudy Giuliani is a well known man. He's a crime fighter. He's loyal to the president. He's a good lawyer. But what I'm trying to say- to the president and anybody else, that the Russians are still up to it. Deterrence is not working. So let's look at Hunter Biden's conflict. Let's look at Joe Biden. Vice President Biden, what did you do when they told you your son was on Burisma's board? It undercuts your ability to fight corruption. Did you take it seriously? Obviously he didn't. But when it comes to documents coming out of the Ukraine, to Republicans and Democrats, be very cautious turning--
Then Brennan gets right to it. Why is Giuliani being sent on an opposition research search on the taxpayer dollar? Literally the definition of a personal political investigation. This does not benefit the country - it benefits Donald Trump.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But- I understand that. However, when you're talking about being asked to do these things in a channel being open between Rudy Giuliani and the Justice Department, this sounds a lot like this is in some ways a taxpayer funded oppo-research operation against Joe Biden. Isn't this exactly what was at the heart of the impeachment probe to begin with? SEN. GRAHAM: No, not at all.
Then Brennan asks a great question that many of us want the answer to:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Who's paying Rudy Giuliani? SEN. GRAHAM: I don't know. Here's my message to Rudy: If you've got something coming from the Ukraine, turn it over to the intelligence people, the Department of Justice, to any Democrat.
So we don't know who is paying Rudy. We didn't get an answer as to whether this was a personal political favor. And clearly Graham thinks nothing that Trump is doing is wrong. Even though he was literally impeached for it.
Keep drinking the kool-aid, Lindsey.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Trump's Targeting Of Truth Tellers Is Turning The Intelligence Community Into A Crowd Of Cowards

Donald Trump ’ s removal of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , his brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman , and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was not a “ massacre ” in the spirit of what happened with Richard Nixon ’ s dismissal of special prosecutor Archibald Cox .
Because what raised the body count in Nixon ’ s case was that his own people resigned rather than carry out clearly immoral orders .
That ’ s not a problem for Trump .
The whole story of Donald Trump ’ s occupation of the White House has been one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EPA to the DOJ to the State Department—has been systematically cleansed of competency in favor of reflexive obedience .
So naturally no one at the White House had a second thought about escorting out a decorated veteran for the crime of speaking the truth , or another veteran for the crime of being related to someone Trump doesn ’ t like .
And just as naturally , Trump had no hesitation in owning these actions .
But what Trump has done so far , may be just a hint of the destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s already done to the intelligence agencies represents a looming threat from both inside and outside the nation .
Every time Trump plumbs new depths of odiousness , his staff makes a scramble to create an excuse .
On Friday , that excuse was that Vindman wasn ’ t being let go because he obeyed a congressional subpoena ; it was all just part of a “ shrinking ” of Trump ’ s already wildly reduced White House staff .
And every time Trump ’ s staff constructs one of these pretexts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he seems , Trump rushes forward to make it clear that he so , so is .
Just as he continuously blew up the various reasons that Republicans concocted as excuses for Trump ’ s actions in Ukraine , he couldn ’ t allow the public to think that he was anything less than a monster in sending away Vindman .
That ’ s why Trump was on Twitter Saturday morning to make it clear he was sacking the Ukraine expert for being “ very insubordinate.
” Why Yevgeny Vindman was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apparently he was insubordinate adjacent .
Trump ’ s advisers surely have an excuse for that one , too .
Of course , both Vindmans are just immigrants in the armed services .
As The Washington Post reported last November , Trump ’ s attitude in that area was godawful on multiple fronts .
But if what Trump has done so far seems egregious ( because it is ) , it ’ s barely a patch on things to come .
As The Washington Post reports , Trump has his staff working up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Atkinson .
Atkinson ’ s involvement was simply that he notified Congress of the existence of a whistleblower complain as required by law .
Who watches the watchmen ?
Not a damned soul , apparently .
Or at least no one who is allowed to do anything about it .
Like speak .
At the State Department , at the National Security Council , at the CIA , the FBI , the DOJ … everywhere in the government the actions have been the same .
Long term non-partisan employees have been forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never in the past been political have been made over in the service of Trump .
By long tradition , the CIA director does not attend the State of the Union address to avoid even a symbolic suggestion that the agency acts out of anything but its best interpretation of the information .
But Gina Haspel was there on Tuesday night , bouncing up with the best Republican jack-in-the-boxes to applaud every moment of Trump ’ s partisan attacks and game show stunts .
Even before Trump gets around to sacking Atkinson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another aspect of his campaign machinery is already clear .
As Politico reports , the regular briefing of Congress on threats to the nation has been delayed .
The reason for that delay : “ fears of provoking Trump 's ire.
” Even though the purpose of this annual appearance is to outline the biggest threats to the nation in front of the nation , intelligence agencies are now arguing to move the whole hearing behind closed doors .
More than that , they want the whole threat overview classified .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what the dangers are ; not when the biggest is sitting on Pennsylvania Avenue .
Intelligence agencies don ’ t want to tell Congress the truth about what is happening in public , because they ’ re afraid they might say something Trump doesn ’ t like .
Because saying something that Trump doesn ’ t like can be punished .
Even if it ’ s true .

Donald Trump’s removal of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, his brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was not a “massacre” in the spirit of what happened with Richard Nixon’s dismissal of special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Because what raised the body count in Nixon’s case was that his own people resigned rather than carry out clearly immoral orders. That’s not a problem for Trump.
The whole story of Donald Trump’s occupation of the White House has been one in which every unit of the government—from the EPA to the DOJ to the State Department—has been systematically cleansed of competency in favor of reflexive obedience. So naturally no one at the White House had a second thought about escorting out a decorated veteran for the crime of speaking the truth, or another veteran for the crime of being related to someone Trump doesn’t like. And just as naturally, Trump had no hesitation in owning these actions.
But what Trump has done so far, may be just a hint of the destruction to come, and what he’s already done to the intelligence agencies represents a looming threat from both inside and outside the nation.
Every time Trump plumbs new depths of odiousness, his staff makes a scramble to create an excuse. On Friday, that excuse was that Vindman wasn’t being let go because he obeyed a congressional subpoena; it was all just part of a “shrinking” of Trump’s already wildly reduced White House staff.
And every time Trump’s staff constructs one of these pretexts for why he’s not as awful as he seems, Trump rushes forward to make it clear that he so, so is. Just as he continuously blew up the various reasons that Republicans concocted as excuses for Trump’s actions in Ukraine, he couldn’t allow the public to think that he was anything less than a monster in sending away Vindman.
That’s why Trump was on Twitter Saturday morning to make it clear he was sacking the Ukraine expert for being “very insubordinate.” Why Yevgeny Vindman was also shipped off wasn’t clear. Apparently he was insubordinate adjacent. Trump’s advisers surely have an excuse for that one, too.
Of course, both Vindmans are just immigrants in the armed services. As The Washington Post reported last November, Trump’s attitude in that area was godawful on multiple fronts.
“The Trump administration has reversed almost all progress, out loud and with purpose. Their message to immigrant service members is the same as that to Vindman: You are foreign, you are suspect, you cannot belong.”
But if what Trump has done so far seems egregious (because it is), it’s barely a patch on things to come. As The Washington Post reports, Trump has his staff working up the removal of intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson. Atkinson’s involvement was simply that he notified Congress of the existence of a whistleblower complain as required by law.
Who watches the watchmen? Not a damned soul, apparently. Or at least no one who is allowed to do anything about it. Like speak.
At the State Department, at the National Security Council, at the CIA, the FBI, the DOJ … everywhere in the government the actions have been the same. Long term non-partisan employees have been forced from their positions and roles that have never in the past been political have been made over in the service of Trump. By long tradition, the CIA director does not attend the State of the Union address to avoid even a symbolic suggestion that the agency acts out of anything but its best interpretation of the information. But Gina Haspel was there on Tuesday night, bouncing up with the best Republican jack-in-the-boxes to applaud every moment of Trump’s partisan attacks and game show stunts.
Even before Trump gets around to sacking Atkinson, the conversion of the intelligence community into another aspect of his campaign machinery is already clear. As Politico reports, the regular briefing of Congress on threats to the nation has been delayed. The reason for that delay: “fears of provoking Trump's ire.”
Even though the purpose of this annual appearance is to outline the biggest threats to the nation in front of the nation, intelligence agencies are now arguing to move the whole hearing behind closed doors. More than that, they want the whole threat overview classified. After all, people don’t need to know what the dangers are; not when the biggest is sitting on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Intelligence agencies don’t want to tell Congress the truth about what is happening in public, because they’re afraid they might say something Trump doesn’t like. Because saying something that Trump doesn’t like can be punished. Even if it’s true.
Especially if it’s true.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--YA BURNT: Elizabeth Warren Throws A Zinger At Mike Pence

Senator Manchin , Democrat from W. Virginia , is not phased in the slightest by Trump , and even punches @ @ @ @ @ the White House over impeachment .

Can you help us out?
For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--CNN Anchor Alisyn Camerota Confuses Guiliani Whitewash With Actual Vetting

Hey Alisyn , i normally think you 're a good solid reporter , but WTF ?
Here you are , rationalizing that having the Justice Department look over Rudy Giuliani 's conspiracy tales is some kind of improvement .
You are simply too trusting .
On the Monday morning edition of CNN ’ s New Day , co-anchor John Berman noted that “ a number of Republican senators who voted against convicting the president said , ‘ He 's going to learn his lesson .
The administration — surely , surely they 're not going to engage in this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clearly sarcastic allusion to Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) .
“ Well hold on a second .
How is this not learning a lesson ?
” Camerota said .
“ Is n't this what the lesson is from impeachment — which is , they now are going to see if Rudy 's information is verified , now.
” John Avlon was having none of that : “ The most generous explanation is that the Justice Department is going to create a channel to try to make sure the information isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The bad news , that also means that also means that they are taking dirt , and they ’ re funneling it against the president ’ s political enemies , as he tried to do in secret the first time around .
Just like Republican senators are trying to do by getting documents from the Treasury Department against Hunter Biden.
” And , as Berman commented , `` How is creating a crazy box at the Justice Department learning a lesson from impeachment ?
”

Hey Alisyn, i normally think you're a good solid reporter, but WTF? Here you are, rationalizing that having the Justice Department look over Rudy Giuliani's conspiracy tales is some kind of improvement. You are simply too trusting.
Via Media Matters:
On the Monday morning edition of CNN’s New Day, co-anchor John Berman noted that “a number of Republican senators who voted against convicting the president said, ‘He's going to learn his lesson. The administration — surely, surely they're not going to engage in this kind of behavior again,’” in a clearly sarcastic allusion to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). “Well hold on a second. How is this not learning a lesson?” Camerota said. “Isn't this what the lesson is from impeachment — which is, they now are going to see if Rudy's information is verified, now.”
John Avlon was having none of that:
“The most generous explanation is that the Justice Department is going to create a channel to try to make sure the information isn’t Kremlin propaganda,” Avlon said. “The bad news, that also means that also means that they are taking dirt, and they’re funneling it against the president’s political enemies, as he tried to do in secret the first time around. Just like Republican senators are trying to do by getting documents from the Treasury Department against Hunter Biden.”
And, as Berman commented, "How is creating a crazy box at the Justice Department learning a lesson from impeachment?”


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Sen. Joe Manchin Throws Epic Shade At Man-Baby-In-Chief

Nice to see one of the Republi-Dems come out swinging against Trump .
Hallie Jackson had Senator Joe Manchin on her show , and asked him about being the target of some particularly vicious tweets from His Highness because of his vote to convict Trump of both impeachment charges .
Presumably , Trump knew single-cell creatures like Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander would vote to acquit , but apparently he also had hopes that the ( technically ) Democratic senator from West Virginia would also vote with the Republicans .
Who could blame him ?
Sen. Manchin did , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confessed beer-lover Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court .
Anyhow , Trump apparently reached deep into his well of cleverly-contrived zingers to call Manchin `` Senator Munchkin . ''
Har .
Jackson asked him about this , and also about the accusation from Pres .
Putinpoodle that Manchin was a huge disappointment to his constituents , and a puppet of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer .
Sen. Manchin did not hold back , and hit Trump where it hurts .
SEN. MANCHIN : First of all , the munchkin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think I 'm a little bit bigger than he is , not heavier , he 's much heavier than me , not taller .
I 'm a little bit taller than him , so I guess he 's got that bit off .
But on the thing of the attack , it 's nothing I did n't expect .
I mean , the thing I have said all along and he 's -- a reference I did n't understand the transcript .
I hope he was n't referring to , because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't understand or comprehend , we do a pretty good job of that , and I understood it very well .
I read it and it understood it .
The evidence was overwhelming , Hallie .
And I was hopeful that the president said he wanted a fair trial in the Senate .
That he would bring witnesses forward , and I know where I come from in West Virginia , if someone accuses me of something and I know I 'm innocent , I ca n't wait to show that person wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses that will refute what was said about me or the evidence that proves it also .
They did none of that ... .
Hear that , Donnie ?
Manchin is taller and much thinner than you are , sweetie .
And he hopes you were n't calling him `` dumb . ''
Projection , much , Donnie ?
And could you ever see Susan Collins dissing Trump like that ?
Hallie then reminded Manchin of his bipartisan eagerness , to the degree he 'd betray women and his party ( I added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he could still work with this `` president '' after being called ... a munchkin .
Senator Manchin responded with the excellent shade worthy of a New Yorker , frankly .
SEN. MANCHIN : Do you think names bother me ?
Do I look like I 'm small and fragile ?
Names do n't bother me , and the president knows he ca n't get to me that way .
I 'm not going to retaliate .
The people want a mature adult , that 's what the president should be .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I want him to succeed .
This is not personal with me .
I mean , he can call me all the names he wants to .
It makes HIM look like an immature adult .
`` Do I look like I 'm small and fragile ? ''
Like certain orange-faced , tantrum-throwing world leaders ?
`` The people want a mature adult . ''
Shade well-thrown , Senator .
At the end , though , Manchin said we have a `` divider-in-chief .
What we need is a uniter in chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to that . ''
The thing is , Trump ca n't `` come back '' to being something he never was .
Which is why Manchin never should have given him shelter to begin with .
But better late than never .

Nice to see one of the Republi-Dems come out swinging against Trump. Hallie Jackson had Senator Joe Manchin on her show, and asked him about being the target of some particularly vicious tweets from His Highness because of his vote to convict Trump of both impeachment charges. Presumably, Trump knew single-cell creatures like Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander would vote to acquit, but apparently he also had hopes that the (technically) Democratic senator from West Virginia would also vote with the Republicans. Who could blame him? Sen. Manchin did, after all, vote to put alleged rapist and confessed beer-lover Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
Anyhow, Trump apparently reached deep into his well of cleverly-contrived zingers to call Manchin "Senator Munchkin." Har. Jackson asked him about this, and also about the accusation from Pres. Putinpoodle that Manchin was a huge disappointment to his constituents, and a puppet of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Sen. Manchin did not hold back, and hit Trump where it hurts.
SEN. MANCHIN: First of all, the munchkin, I'm taller than him, I think I'm a little bit bigger than he is, not heavier, he's much heavier than me, not taller. I'm a little bit taller than him, so I guess he's got that bit off. But on the thing of the attack, it's nothing I didn't expect. I mean, the thing I have said all along and he's -- a reference I didn't understand the transcript. I hope he wasn't referring to, because I'm from West Virginia that we can't understand or comprehend, we do a pretty good job of that, and I understood it very well. I read it and it understood it. The evidence was overwhelming, Hallie. And I was hopeful that the president said he wanted a fair trial in the Senate. That he would bring witnesses forward, and I know where I come from in West Virginia, if someone accuses me of something and I know I'm innocent, I can't wait to show that person wrong, I can't wait to bring witnesses that will refute what was said about me or the evidence that proves it also. They did none of that....
Hear that, Donnie? Manchin is taller and much thinner than you are, sweetie. And he hopes you weren't calling him "dumb." Projection, much, Donnie? And could you ever see Susan Collins dissing Trump like that?
Hallie then reminded Manchin of his bipartisan eagerness, to the degree he'd betray women and his party (I added that last part) and wondered if he could still work with this "president" after being called...a munchkin.
(oh dear god I cannot believe the absurdity of the sentences I write sometimes.)
Senator Manchin responded with the excellent shade worthy of a New Yorker, frankly.
SEN. MANCHIN: Do you think names bother me? Do I look like I'm small and fragile? Names don't bother me, and the president knows he can't get to me that way. I'm not going to retaliate. The people want a mature adult, that's what the president should be. That's who we want as our president. I want him to succeed. This is not personal with me. I mean, he can call me all the names he wants to. It makes HIM look like an immature adult.
"Do I look like I'm small and fragile?" Like certain orange-faced, tantrum-throwing world leaders? "The people want a mature adult." Shade well-thrown, Senator.
At the end, though, Manchin said we have a "divider-in-chief. What we need is a uniter in chief and I'm hoping the president comes back to that." The thing is, Trump can't "come back" to being something he never was. Which is why Manchin never should have given him shelter to begin with. But better late than never.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Kellyanne Conway Lies About Trump's Vindictive Firing Of Lt. Col. Vindman

Kellyanne Conway tried to make believe Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and his brother were just `` reassigned '' instead of @ @ @ @ @ the Orange Julius .
Steve Doocy opened up the discussion by saying Vindman and his @ @ @ @ @ Senator Lindsey Graham , Trump 's Senatorial attack dog , said the Vindmans were fired @ @ @ @ @ She said they didn ’ t get fired they just got `` relocated . ''
@ @ @ @ @ disagreeing publicly with Trump 's Saturday tweets , or does NO ONE in the White @ @ @ @ @ ?
Kellyanne said , `` This is very typical in the White House to have @ @ @ @ @ period of time and then return to work at their full-time job . ''
And @ @ @ @ @ possibility many others will be ousted from the White House .
Her husband , George @ @ @ @ @ Saturday tweet and noted that there 's gaslighting going on .
From whom , George @

Trump's presidential "adviser" joined state-sponsored TVs Fox and Friends on Monday. n
Kellyanne Conway tried to make believe Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and his brother were just "reassigned" instead of being targeted for retribution by the Orange Julius.
Steve Doocy opened up the discussion by saying Vindman and his brother were fired.
Even Senator Lindsey Graham, Trump's Senatorial attack dog, said the Vindmans were fired... but not Kellyanne!
She said they didn’t get fired they just got "relocated."
Does she know she's disagreeing publicly with Trump's Saturday tweets, or does NO ONE in the White House remember 48 hours ago?
Kellyanne said, "This is very typical in the White House to have a detail for a temporary period of time and then return to work at their full-time job."
And then she hinted at the possibility many others will be ousted from the White House.
Her husband, George Conway, retweeted Trump's Saturday tweet and noted that there's gaslighting going on. From whom, George?


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Stable Genius Says Coronavirus Will 'Go Away' In April

How many Republican members of Congress would like to hang from the end of a rope until Donald Trump did @ @ @ @ @ better healthcare to Americans ?
Monday the stable genius told a group of governors at @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , which has killed over nine hundred people and infected over 40,000 is going @ @ @ @ @ .
Because it will be warmer weather in April .
No , really .
DONALD @ @ @ @ @ people think that goes away in April with the heat .
As the heat comes @ @ @ @ @ go away in April .
We 're in great shape , though .
The head @ @ @ @ @ disagrees : At least Stephen Colbert 's writers can take the night off .

How many Republican members of Congress would like to hang from the end of a rope until Donald Trump did or said something that brought better healthcare to Americans?
Monday the stable genius told a group of governors at the White House that the coronavirus, which has killed over nine hundred people and infected over 40,000 is going to go away in April. Because it will be warmer weather in April. No, really.
DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat. As the heat comes in. Typically that will go away in April. We're in great shape, though.
The head of the World Health Organization disagrees:
In an evolving public health emergency, all countries must step up efforts to prepare for #2019nCoV’s possible arrival and do their utmost to contain it should it arrive. This means lab capacity for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing and other tools in the public health arsenal. — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) February 9, 2020
As I told media yesterday, #2019nCoV spread outside #China appears to be slow now, but could accelerate. Containment remains our objective, but all countries must use the window of opportunity created by the containment strategy to prepare for the virus’s possible arrival. — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) February 9, 2020
There’ve been some concerning instances of onward #2019nCoV spread from people with no travel history to 🇨🇳. The detection of a small number of cases may indicate more widespread transmission in other countries; in short, we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) February 9, 2020
At least Stephen Colbert's writers can take the night off.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Tiffany Cross Rips Into Media For Soft-Selling Trump's Racism: 'This Is How Democracies Fall'

Any time Tiffany Cross opens her mouth to tell us something we need to pipe down and listen .
She had some words on AM Joy yesterday about how the media continues to screw up coverage of Hair Fürer and obsess over the Trump voter .
As if there was some mystery surrounding his appeal to them .
As if there are n't blaring alarm sirens like Neo-Nazis marching in DC — this damn weekend .
As if somehow it 's acceptable for the consumers of media to hear the Orange Twitler 's rants about carnage in the streets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' impeachment , and public threats to intimidate Congressional witnesses , yet NOT ACCEPTABLE for media to call what they 're seeing racism , lies , propaganda , concentration camps at the border , fascism , dictatorship , and misogyny without being filtered through the network or possibly fired .
And this is just from our own side !
How was it NOT acceptable for Speaker Pelosi to rip up those lies on national TV ?
How is it NOT okay to let white people know they need to be better and see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How has it EVER helped to swaddle the shallow racist thinker and say , `` There , there , tell us how you FEEL .
We just want to UNDERSTAND you better ?
What are YOUR anxieties ? ''
while the one they voted for is empowered even further to imprison brown people coming to America begging for help , and investigate patriots for telling the truth ?
REID : And just yesterday you had white nationalists do a march right down Downtown D.C. REID : Literally not far from where we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now .
That is like now a thing that happens .
And yet one of the features of this reality show was to keep featuring Black people , to keep showing Tuskegee airmen and new his grandson who 's going to go to space , and look at this little Black girl , something for the Black lady , something for the brown person , there was a lot of featuring of People of Color that was very deliberate .
CROSS : Yeah , it was deliberate , and what is disappointing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president after the State of the Union .
We did n't have outrage about the Rush Limbaugh getting the Medal of Freedom .
The press treated it like , `` Oh , this happened also . ''
And you had some people terribly misguided saying that the president is really trying to make inroads with Black and brown voices .
Well , that 's BS .
REID : There were Black folks in the media who said that .
CROSS : Exactly , which was very disheartening for me to hear .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know who we 're talking about .
And it 's very disheartening .
CORN : Oh , come on !
( laughing ) CROSS : But it was very disappointing to see that .
You know , look , I would say that Black people should be probably the first point of reference when talking about white supremacy .
It pains me every time I hear something like this and we saw the neo-Nazis marching down D.C. And then this chorus of people saying , `` This is not who we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
This is America .
And until we 're willing to have an honest conversation about reconciling that , we 'll keep having these challenges .
And more and more ( applause ) thank you .
The more and more you see people who are continuously attempting to normalize and elevate -- look , I do n't need to understand Trump 's base to know who they are .
I am a Black woman who grew up between Ohio and Georgia .
I know very well who this base is .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media has with , `` Let 's understand them , let 's dig deeper , '' I do n't understand it .
You are lending space to people who are racist , hateful people and trying to put a misnomer on it , as though these are voters .
Look , I think that -- lastly I 'll say I did think that the Democrats will have to start to respond differently .
There was a reason when Cardi B spoke with such righteous anger about the government shutdown , there was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her voice , and retweeted her , and shared her , and echoed her thoughts than they did with our legislators .
You even had Chuck Schumer saying `` Hey , are you going to retweet the Cardi B video ? ''
Because she spoke with that righteous anger that so many of us feel .
If I said a lot of things that I really think , it would get filtered through networks .
We just ca n't say that .
But you broadcast live , Donald Trump regurgitating the most hateful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to filter our own voices ?
This is how democracies fall .
We 're seeing it in real time .
When was the last time you saw a reporter interview someone who voted for Hillary Clinton to see how they have been coping these long three years ?
How about a Kamala Harris supporter who looks at this blindingly white debate stage to see the glaring privilege and lack of progress it represents ?
Laziness .
White media is lazy .
Find and follow Black and brown journalists and writers .
The Root @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tiffany Cross .
Elie Mystal .
Ijeoma Oluo .
Brittney Cooper .
Damon Young .
Mehdi Hassan .
Maria Hinojosa .
Maria Teresa Kumar .
Anand Giriharadas .
They will tell you the truth .
And if you are a white person torn between competing Black/brown points of view , always listen harder to the one that is challenging you the most , rather than the one that is telling you you 're doing just fine .
Always .
Otherwise , as Tiffany Cross told us , `` This is how democracies fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time . ''

Any time Tiffany Cross opens her mouth to tell us something we need to pipe down and listen. She had some words on AM Joy yesterday about how the media continues to screw up coverage of Hair Fürer and obsess over the Trump voter. As if there was some mystery surrounding his appeal to them. As if there aren't blaring alarm sirens like Neo-Nazis marching in DC — this damn weekend.
As if somehow it's acceptable for the consumers of media to hear the Orange Twitler's rants about carnage in the streets, "shithole" countries, "bullshit" impeachment, and public threats to intimidate Congressional witnesses, yet NOT ACCEPTABLE for media to call what they're seeing racism, lies, propaganda, concentration camps at the border, fascism, dictatorship, and misogyny without being filtered through the network or possibly fired.
And this is just from our own side! How was it NOT acceptable for Speaker Pelosi to rip up those lies on national TV? How is it NOT okay to let white people know they need to be better and see this America for what it is? How has it EVER helped to swaddle the shallow racist thinker and say, "There, there, tell us how you FEEL. We just want to UNDERSTAND you better? What are YOUR anxieties?" while the one they voted for is empowered even further to imprison brown people coming to America begging for help, and investigate patriots for telling the truth?
REID: And just yesterday you had white nationalists do a march right down Downtown D.C. CROSS: In my hood! REID: Literally not far from where we do the show in D.C. That is happening now. That is like now a thing that happens. And yet one of the features of this reality show was to keep featuring Black people, to keep showing Tuskegee airmen and new his grandson who's going to go to space, and look at this little Black girl, something for the Black lady, something for the brown person, there was a lot of featuring of People of Color that was very deliberate. CROSS: Yeah, it was deliberate, and what is disappointing is the attempt to normalize or understand this president after the State of the Union. We didn't have outrage about the Rush Limbaugh getting the Medal of Freedom. The press treated it like, "Oh, this happened also." And you had some people terribly misguided saying that the president is really trying to make inroads with Black and brown voices. Well, that's BS. REID: There were Black folks in the media who said that. CROSS: Exactly, which was very disheartening for me to hear. I won't call any names, but we know who we're talking about. And it's very disheartening. CORN: Oh, come on! (laughing) CROSS: But it was very disappointing to see that. You know, look, I would say that Black people should be probably the first point of reference when talking about white supremacy. It pains me every time I hear something like this and we saw the neo-Nazis marching down D.C. And then this chorus of people saying, "This is not who we are." This is absolutely who we are. This is America. And until we're willing to have an honest conversation about reconciling that, we'll keep having these challenges. And more and more (applause) thank you. The more and more you see people who are continuously attempting to normalize and elevate -- look, I don't need to understand Trump's base to know who they are. I am a Black woman who grew up between Ohio and Georgia. I know very well who this base is. And this weird anthropological experience that the news media has with, "Let's understand them, let's dig deeper," I don't understand it. You are lending space to people who are racist, hateful people and trying to put a misnomer on it, as though these are voters. Look, I think that -- lastly I'll say I did think that the Democrats will have to start to respond differently. There was a reason when Cardi B spoke with such righteous anger about the government shutdown, there was a reason that more people paid attention to her voice, and retweeted her, and shared her, and echoed her thoughts than they did with our legislators. You even had Chuck Schumer saying "Hey, are you going to retweet the Cardi B video?" Because she spoke with that righteous anger that so many of us feel. If I said a lot of things that I really think, it would get filtered through networks. We just can't say that. But you broadcast live, Donald Trump regurgitating the most hateful, heinous things, and WE have to filter our own voices? This is how democracies fall. We're seeing it in real time.
When was the last time you saw a reporter interview someone who voted for Hillary Clinton to see how they have been coping these long three years? How about a Kamala Harris supporter who looks at this blindingly white debate stage to see the glaring privilege and lack of progress it represents?
Laziness. White media is lazy. Find and follow Black and brown journalists and writers. The Root. The Grio. Joy Reid. Tiffany Cross. Elie Mystal. Ijeoma Oluo. Brittney Cooper. Damon Young. Mehdi Hassan. Maria Hinojosa. Maria Teresa Kumar. Anand Giriharadas.
They will tell you the truth. And if you are a white person torn between competing Black/brown points of view, always listen harder to the one that is challenging you the most, rather than the one that is telling you you're doing just fine. Always. Otherwise, as Tiffany Cross told us, "This is how democracies fall. We're seeing it in real time."


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Trump's 2021 'Budget' Pays For Tax Cuts By Slashing Medicare

Above , Assistant Treasury Secretary Monica Crowley ( yeah ) explains ( to ten-million-a-year Stuart Varney ) Trump 's 2021 budget cuts to health care this way : `` The president also understands that Washington 's habit of out of control spending without consequence has to be stopped . ''
How will announcing cuts to nursing home residents and the elderly work for Trump in an election year ?
We 're about to find out .
Trump released his `` budget '' for 2021 , and it includes huge cuts in Medicare , Medicaid , and Social Security disability .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wall , '' ( the one that blew over into Mexico and also needs to have open gates several months a year for flood control . )
Most remarkable is that the cuts match almost dollar-for-dollar the tax cuts Trump has provided to the billioniare class .
Greg Sargeant in the Washington Post agrees that Trump is n't acting like it 's an election year : `` Trump just saddled himself with a major campaign liability '' .
“ There ’ s no way to make cuts that deep to the Medicaid program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worsening access to care for many more , ” Aviva Aron-Dine , vice president for health policy at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , told me .
It ’ s one of the stranger subplots of this presidency that Trump and Republicans keep gunning for health care , despite the deep unpopularity of those efforts .
Perhaps this reflects a sense that Trump is untouchable .
Or maybe they believe Trump ’ s structural advantages in the electoral college are so unassailable that public opinion just doesn ’ t matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot for reelection , due to incumbency and the economy .
But Trump is giving Democrats a big weapon to wield against him , and they should seize it , just as they did in 2018 .
Trump ’ s acquittal has reinforced a sense among some pundits that he ’ s invulnerable , but his health-care record is still a major liability — and there ’ s just no reason to think that ’ s changed .
UPDATE : Who cuts the EPA by 26 % in an election year ?
This @ @ @ @

Above, Assistant Treasury Secretary Monica Crowley (yeah) explains (to ten-million-a-year Stuart Varney) Trump's 2021 budget cuts to health care this way: "The president also understands that Washington's habit of out of control spending without consequence has to be stopped."
How will announcing cuts to nursing home residents and the elderly work for Trump in an election year?
We're about to find out.
Trump released his "budget" for 2021, and it includes huge cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security disability. It also includes money for his "wall," (the one that blew over into Mexico and also needs to have open gates several months a year for flood control.)
Most remarkable is that the cuts match almost dollar-for-dollar the tax cuts Trump has provided to the billioniare class.
On Social Security & Medicare, reminder:
Estimated $2 trillion cost of Bush and Trump-era tax cuts (for the top 1%) through 2025 is same amount House GOP recently proposed cutting from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Obamacare.
(not enacted, just a budget proposal.) — Heidi Przybyla (@HeidiNBC) February 5, 2020
"It is a dollar-for-dollar transfer of benefits to those who need help the least paid for by those who need help the most," said Phil Schiliro, a Democrat who’s served in several government positions including as President Barack Obama’s legislative director. — Heidi Przybyla (@HeidiNBC) February 5, 2020
Greg Sargeant in the Washington Post agrees that Trump isn't acting like it's an election year: "Trump just saddled himself with a major campaign liability".
“There’s no way to make cuts that deep to the Medicaid program without millions of people losing coverage and worsening access to care for many more,” Aviva Aron-Dine, vice president for health policy at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told me. It’s one of the stranger subplots of this presidency that Trump and Republicans keep gunning for health care, despite the deep unpopularity of those efforts. Perhaps this reflects a sense that Trump is untouchable. Or maybe they believe Trump’s structural advantages in the electoral college are so unassailable that public opinion just doesn’t matter. Trump is at least a 50-50 shot for reelection, due to incumbency and the economy. But Trump is giving Democrats a big weapon to wield against him, and they should seize it, just as they did in 2018. Trump’s acquittal has reinforced a sense among some pundits that he’s invulnerable, but his health-care record is still a major liability — and there’s just no reason to think that’s changed.
UPDATE: Who cuts the EPA by 26% in an election year? This Orange Stable Genius:


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--GOP Senators Alarmed By Firing Of Sondland, A Republican Donor—But Not By The Rest Of Trump's Purge

We now know that a handful of Republican senators were , in fact , alarmed by Donald Trump 's Friday firings of government officials who testified to House impeachment investigators about Trump 's Ukrainian extortion scheme .
More accurately , we now know that a bare handful of Republican senators were concerned only about the firing of U.S Ambassador Gordon Sondland , while remaining unconcerned by Trump 's removal of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his brother , who did not testify .
The likely reason ?
Gordon Sondland , unlike the others , was a big-money Republican campaign donor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Republican Sens .
Susan Collins ( yes , Susan Collins ) , Thom Tillis , Martha McSally and Ron Johnson contacted the White House to try to halt Sondland 's firing .
Sondland , who was made a U.S. ambassador after giving $ 1 million to Trump ’ s own inaugural fund , was signaling he was planning to resign ; the Republican senators wanted Sondland to be given a graceful exit .
That was not to be : a vengeful , frothing Trump was insistent on making a public example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Sondland but not the others ?
Sondland , reports the Times , was `` a donor to Mr. Tillis and other Republicans . ''
So there you go .
We now know the one , the only thing that would get the slightest pushback from the now-fascist Republican Party : Trump humiliating a top-dollar donor .
The rest of it they 're fine with .
That 's not hyperbole .
Sen. Susan Collins , in particular , made a special point of telling the Times that her prior `` hope '' that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' from impeachment was excruciatingly narrow .
It did n't apply , she explained , to Trump 's purge of the witnesses who spoke out to confirm the Trump-Giuliani Ukrainian plot .
“ The lesson that I hoped the president had learned was that he should not enlist the help of a foreign government in investigating a political rival , ” she told the Times .
“ It had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he should fire people who testified in a way that he perceived as harmful to him.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine with Trump retaliating against those who testified to his `` perfect '' actions .
It was just the Republican donor whose plight roused her enough to make a simple phone call .
Her new statement is , yet again and of course , another reversal of a prior Susan Collins statement of supposed principles .
On Friday she told a Maine crowd that `` I obviously am not in favor of any kind of retribution against anyone who came forward with evidence . ''
This new statement clarifies that she is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-authoritarian , non-fascist movement , Dear Leader retaliating against those who testified under oath about his own actions would be astonishingly corrupt .
It would be close to the very definition of corrupt , in fact .
It is now considered an acceptable act , by Republicans , subject to mild private pushback only if the purge happens to touch on one of their own campaign donors .
And even the most `` moderate '' of Republicans , Susan Collins , is now releasing statements clarifying that she is in fact not @ @ @ @ @ @

We now know that a handful of Republican senators were, in fact, alarmed by Donald Trump's Friday firings of government officials who testified to House impeachment investigators about Trump's Ukrainian extortion scheme. More accurately, we now know that a bare handful of Republican senators were concerned only about the firing of U.S Ambassador Gordon Sondland, while remaining unconcerned by Trump's removal of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his brother, who did not testify.
The likely reason? Gordon Sondland, unlike the others, was a big-money Republican campaign donor.
The New York Times is reporting that Republican Sens. Susan Collins (yes, Susan Collins), Thom Tillis, Martha McSally and Ron Johnson contacted the White House to try to halt Sondland's firing. Sondland, who was made a U.S. ambassador after giving $1 million to Trump’s own inaugural fund, was signaling he was planning to resign; the Republican senators wanted Sondland to be given a graceful exit. That was not to be: a vengeful, frothing Trump was insistent on making a public example of him.
Why were the senators concerned about Sondland but not the others? Sondland, reports the Times, was "a donor to Mr. Tillis and other Republicans."
So there you go. We now know the one, the only thing that would get the slightest pushback from the now-fascist Republican Party: Trump humiliating a top-dollar donor. The rest of it they're fine with.
That's not hyperbole. Sen. Susan Collins, in particular, made a special point of telling the Times that her prior "hope" that perhaps Trump would learn a "lesson" from impeachment was excruciatingly narrow. It didn't apply, she explained, to Trump's purge of the witnesses who spoke out to confirm the Trump-Giuliani Ukrainian plot.
“The lesson that I hoped the president had learned was that he should not enlist the help of a foreign government in investigating a political rival,” she told the Times. “It had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he should fire people who testified in a way that he perceived as harmful to him.”
So yes, Susan Collins is fine with Trump retaliating against those who testified to his "perfect" actions. It was just the Republican donor whose plight roused her enough to make a simple phone call.
Her new statement is, yet again and of course, another reversal of a prior Susan Collins statement of supposed principles. On Friday she told a Maine crowd that "I obviously am not in favor of any kind of retribution against anyone who came forward with evidence." This new statement clarifies that she is not specifically against such retribution either.
In a non-authoritarian, non-fascist movement, Dear Leader retaliating against those who testified under oath about his own actions would be astonishingly corrupt. It would be close to the very definition of corrupt, in fact. It is now considered an acceptable act, by Republicans, subject to mild private pushback only if the purge happens to touch on one of their own campaign donors. And even the most "moderate" of Republicans, Susan Collins, is now releasing statements clarifying that she is in fact not expressing any concerns about that.
Published with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--‘That’s Retaliation’: CBS Host Hits Lindsey Graham For Backing Firing Of Impeachment Witnesses

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman has become a target of Republicans after participating in the president ’ s impeachment hearings .
On Sunday , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) suggested that Vindman , who was forced out of his White House position , likely leaked information about President Donald Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme to the original whistleblower who outed the crime .
However , there is no evidence to support Graham ’ s theory .
“ What have I learned in the last two years ?
” Graham told CBS host Margaret Brennan .
“ As to Col. Vindman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked questions about his alleged connections to the alleged whistleblower.
” The CBS host pointed out that Vindman ’ s twin brother was also removed from the administration although he had no role in the Ukraine scandal .
“ Nobody knows this !
” Graham exclaimed .
“ I can promise you this , he has never been asked questions like , ‘ Did you leak to the whistleblower ?
’ People in his chain of command have been suspicious of him regarding his political point of view.
” Brennan reminded Graham that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were no leaks from the National Security Council .
“ Well , I am not , ” Graham stated .
“ I want the man to be asked about what he did with the information .
I appreciate his service but there are FBI agents who took the law in their own hands , there are CIA agents who took the law into their own hands .
There are Department of Justice lawyers who lied to the court .
There ’ s been a movement since President Trump was elected by people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ We ’ re not going to be intimidated , ” Graham shot back .
“ Who is the whistleblower ?
” “ He is an officer and he is not a allowed to speak out on his own behalf , ” Brennan continued .
“ I don ’ t know what role he played with the whistleblower but we ’ re going to look , ” Graham said , brushing aside Brennan ’ s point .
The question set Graham off : “ We ’ re not going to live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the CIA and the FBI can cut corners , go after Trump and nobody gives a damn .
”

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman has become a target of Republicans after participating in the president’s impeachment hearings. On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that Vindman, who was forced out of his White House position, likely leaked information about President Donald Trump’s Ukraine scheme to the original whistleblower who outed the crime.
However, there is no evidence to support Graham’s theory.
“What have I learned in the last two years?” Graham told CBS host Margaret Brennan. “As to Col. Vindman, he was not allowed to be asked questions about his alleged connections to the alleged whistleblower.”
“He was asked,” Brennan interjected. “And he denied it.”
The CBS host pointed out that Vindman’s twin brother was also removed from the administration although he had no role in the Ukraine scandal.
“Nobody knows this!” Graham exclaimed. “I can promise you this, he has never been asked questions like, ‘Did you leak to the whistleblower?’ People in his chain of command have been suspicious of him regarding his political point of view.”
Brennan reminded Graham that the Trump administration is on record saying there were no leaks from the National Security Council.
“Well, I am not,” Graham stated. “I want the man to be asked about what he did with the information. I appreciate his service but there are FBI agents who took the law in their own hands, there are CIA agents who took the law into their own hands. There are Department of Justice lawyers who lied to the court. There’s been a movement since President Trump was elected by people in our government to bring him down.”
“Is this retaliation?” Brennan asked of Vindman’s firing.
“We’re not going to be intimidated,” Graham shot back. “Who is the whistleblower?”
“He is an officer and he is not a allowed to speak out on his own behalf,” Brennan continued.
“I don’t know what role he played with the whistleblower but we’re going to look,” Graham said, brushing aside Brennan’s point.
“Should Gordon Sondland have been fired too?” Brennan wondered.
The question set Graham off: “We’re not going to live in a world where the Department of Justice, the CIA and the FBI can cut corners, go after Trump and nobody gives a damn.”
“It was retaliation,” Brennan observed.


crooksandliars--2020-02-10--Military Prayer Breakfasts Promise To Unify—But Deliver The Opposite

[ UPDATE : Without explanation , the Air Force has remedied the situation described here , after the story was posted , and before the St. Louis Post Dispatch posted their own story on the controversy .
The story still stands as a record of what did happen -- and would have remained true without media exposure , which began right here with this story .
Added details below . ]
Prayer is supposed to bring people together , at least that ’ s the promise .
But in practice it ’ s often the opposite .
During the Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was frequently noted that Sunday mornings were the most segregated time of the week .
Today ’ s military reveals another contradiction—how coercive prayer events undermine the very cohesion they ’ re allegedly supposed to promote .
While Trump ’ s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast has sparked widespread controversy , there are close to a thousand similar prayer breakfasts and luncheons being held at military bases across the country and around the world , and those events—barely noticed by the wider civilian world—always embody some degree of that contradiction , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation .
This year , at Scott Air Force Base in St. Clair County , Illinois , the local Air Force commander , Colonel Jeremiah S. Heathman , clearly crossed a bright line , where informal social pressure crosses over into conduct that ’ s clearly prohibited , in order to protect the religious freedom of all who serve under him .
“ It should be the chapel running a prayer breakfast , not the command , ” MRFF President Mikey Weinstein told Crooks and Liars .
[ See Heathman ’ s invitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the invitation and the prayer breakfast 's speaker are high ranking ( one officer and one NCO ) in command positions , and are clearly in violation of Air Force Instruction 1-1.
” As a result , fifteen individuals—Christian and non-Christian alike—reached out for MRFF ’ s help .
The question of balance is crucial here .
Of course military commanders have freedom of religion , but so does everyone serving under them , and they can not act in a manner that infringes on the rights of others by violating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This regulation was drafted specifically to address the balance of concerns that exists in the military .
“ These prayer breakfasts are supposed to bring people together and encourage unit cohesion , ” Weinstein said .
“ But they 're used as a cudgel , were started by The Family , that Jeff Sharlet talks about [ in his books , C Street and The Family ] , and they do the exact opposite—they are literally an atomic bomb on good order , morale , discipline , and unit cohesion , ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mission .
Nine years ago , the MRFF sued the Air Force Academy over one such prayer breakfast , where the invitation came from the vice commander and the featured speaker was Marine 1st Lt. Clebe McClary , described simply as “ an inspirational speaker , ” but whose website declared “ U.S.M.C .
will always mean a U.S. Marine for Christ.
” MRFF represented more than 100 clients and was joined in the lawsuit by five Air Force Academy faculty members .
Although MRFF did not win in court , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We blazed a trail nine years ago , in federal court , ” Weinstein said .
“ We know the Academy thought that they ’ d be in there for 10 or 15 minutes , but they were raked over the coals with this , and since that time , we have not had a problem with them.
” It ’ s not that specific problems don ’ t arise , but that they ’ re handled quickly and quietly when they do—like the vast majority of the problems MRFF deals with .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of year , ” Weinstein said .
“ After we get through the holidays , which is always difficult , we might have a couple weeks , a fortnight of a little bit of a respite , but then we get into what we call national prayer lunch and national prayer breakfast season for the military.
” It lasts from mid-January through February or early March .
“ Almost every military installation has one , ” he explained .
“ Not all of them but the overwhelming majority.
” The hierarchical nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience pressures civilians might find it hard to fathom .
Prayer breakfasts and luncheons exacerbate the day-to-day experience .
Minority religions are only occasionally represented , and there ’ s no history of seeking out speakers with an affirmatively inclusive perspective .
“ The military is steeped in white male straight Christian privilege , ” Weinstein noted , “ And I 've said it before , fish in an aquarium never see the water.
” But that doesn ’ t mean taking on every fight .
“ There 's two ways that MRFF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained .
“ The first is if the speaker does n't have any history of being a religious extremist , ” he said .
In this case , the speaker was the top non-commissioned officer in a different command , an odd choice that caught MRFF ’ s attention , but they found no such questionable history .
“ The second is how are you invited .
If you 're invited through the chaplain , we 'll stay out of it .
We do n't like it , we do n't like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but at least the chaplains arguably can not put the duress on a military subordinate , ” because they are not command officers .
But it ’ s still less than ideal .
“ Having chaplains in the military would be okay with us if they did n't also have military rank , ” he explained .
“ If they were civilian employees , it would be much easier to get away from the duress of the seeing a general 's stars or an admiral 's stars on some chaplains.
” In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spelled it out .
“ A formal invitation from a senior Commander in an airman 's chain-of-command is not something to be taken casually .
Indeed , sir , the verb “ volunTOLD ” pretty much says it all .
The RSVP is , in itself , an order to reply.
” The solution at Scott Air Force Base is both easy and simple : withdraw the command letter , with an explanation , and have another sent out by the chaplain instead .
The breakfast can go on exactly as planned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just two emails , and it 's fixed .
So why isn ’ t the Air Force responding ?
The demand letter was cc ’ d to Air Force Secretary Barbara M. Barrett , and Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein , so the Air Force as a whole has been notified .
But so far , Weinstein said , “ I received one arrogant call phone call back from a member of their public affairs office , saying , ‘ Mr .
Weinstein , we have your letter , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is our only statement at this time . '
” Crooks and Liars got a shorter version , when we called to confirm : “ We are aware .
That ’ s our statement.
” “ I called them back and they do n't want to talk , ” Weinstein said .
“ They do n't want to do the right thing.
” [ UPDATE ] Apparently the threat of media exposure was not enough to change their minds , but two or three hours after this story posted , they seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post-Dispatch reported : It falls short of fulling owning up and turning the episode into a learning opportunity .
But MRFF 's clients should be relieved , and the chances of repetition have again been diminished , protecting countless Air Force service members in the future..

[UPDATE: Without explanation, the Air Force has remedied the situation described here, after the story was posted, and before the St. Louis Post Dispatch posted their own story on the controversy. The story still stands as a record of what did happen--and would have remained true without media exposure, which began right here with this story. Added details below.]
Prayer is supposed to bring people together, at least that’s the promise. But in practice it’s often the opposite. During the Civil Rights Movement, for example, it was frequently noted that Sunday mornings were the most segregated time of the week. Today’s military reveals another contradiction—how coercive prayer events undermine the very cohesion they’re allegedly supposed to promote. While Trump’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast has sparked widespread controversy, there are close to a thousand similar prayer breakfasts and luncheons being held at military bases across the country and around the world, and those events—barely noticed by the wider civilian world—always embody some degree of that contradiction, which is closely monitored by Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
This year, at Scott Air Force Base in St. Clair County, Illinois, the local Air Force commander, Colonel Jeremiah S. Heathman, clearly crossed a bright line, where informal social pressure crosses over into conduct that’s clearly prohibited, in order to protect the religious freedom of all who serve under him.
“It should be the chapel running a prayer breakfast, not the command,” MRFF President Mikey Weinstein told Crooks and Liars. [See Heathman’s invitation here.] “Both the sender of the invitation and the prayer breakfast's speaker are high ranking (one officer and one NCO) in command positions, and are clearly in violation of Air Force Instruction 1-1.” As a result, fifteen individuals—Christian and non-Christian alike—reached out for MRFF’s help.
Specifically, AFI 1-1, Paragraph 2.12 states:
Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief (emphasis added).
The question of balance is crucial here. Of course military commanders have freedom of religion, but so does everyone serving under them, and they cannot act in a manner that infringes on the rights of others by violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This regulation was drafted specifically to address the balance of concerns that exists in the military.
“These prayer breakfasts are supposed to bring people together and encourage unit cohesion,” Weinstein said. “But they're used as a cudgel, were started by The Family, that Jeff Sharlet talks about [in his books, C Street and The Family], and they do the exact opposite—they are literally an atomic bomb on good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion,” which are considered essential to the military’s mission.
Nine years ago, the MRFF sued the Air Force Academy over one such prayer breakfast, where the invitation came from the vice commander and the featured speaker was Marine 1st Lt. Clebe McClary, described simply as “an inspirational speaker,” but whose website declared “U.S.M.C. will always mean a U.S. Marine for Christ.” MRFF represented more than 100 clients and was joined in the lawsuit by five Air Force Academy faculty members.
Although MRFF did not win in court, the three-day hearing sent a message. “We blazed a trail nine years ago, in federal court,” Weinstein said. “We know the Academy thought that they’d be in there for 10 or 15 minutes, but they were raked over the coals with this, and since that time, we have not had a problem with them.”
It’s not that specific problems don’t arise, but that they’re handled quickly and quietly when they do—like the vast majority of the problems MRFF deals with.
“We get completely smothered this time of year,” Weinstein said. “After we get through the holidays, which is always difficult, we might have a couple weeks, a fortnight of a little bit of a respite, but then we get into what we call national prayer lunch and national prayer breakfast season for the military.” It lasts from mid-January through February or early March. “Almost every military installation has one,” he explained. “Not all of them but the overwhelming majority.”
The hierarchical nature of the military means that religious minorities routinely experience pressures civilians might find it hard to fathom. Prayer breakfasts and luncheons exacerbate the day-to-day experience. Minority religions are only occasionally represented, and there’s no history of seeking out speakers with an affirmatively inclusive perspective. “The military is steeped in white male straight Christian privilege,” Weinstein noted, “And I've said it before, fish in an aquarium never see the water.”
But that doesn’t mean taking on every fight.
“There's two ways that MRFF will not get involved,” Weinstein explained. “The first is if the speaker doesn't have any history of being a religious extremist,” he said. In this case, the speaker was the top non-commissioned officer in a different command, an odd choice that caught MRFF’s attention, but they found no such questionable history. “The second is how are you invited. If you're invited through the chaplain, we'll stay out of it. We don't like it, we don't like the whole thing, it's terrible, but at least the chaplains arguably cannot put the duress on a military subordinate,” because they are not command officers. But it’s still less than ideal. “Having chaplains in the military would be okay with us if they didn't also have military rank,” he explained. “If they were civilian employees, it would be much easier to get away from the duress of the seeing a general's stars or an admiral's stars on some chaplains.”
In his demand letter to Colonel Heathman, Weinstein spelled it out. “A formal invitation from a senior Commander in an airman's chain-of-command is not something to be taken casually. Indeed, sir, the verb “volunTOLD” pretty much says it all. The RSVP is, in itself, an order to reply.”
The solution at Scott Air Force Base is both easy and simple: withdraw the command letter, with an explanation, and have another sent out by the chaplain instead. The breakfast can go on exactly as planned. Nothing operational has to be changed. Just two emails, and it's fixed. So why isn’t the Air Force responding?
The demand letter was cc’d to Air Force Secretary Barbara M. Barrett, and Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein, so the Air Force as a whole has been notified. But so far, Weinstein said, “I received one arrogant call phone call back from a member of their public affairs office, saying, ‘Mr. Weinstein, we have your letter, we are aware of your request, and that is our only statement at this time.'”
Crooks and Liars got a shorter version, when we called to confirm: “We are aware. That’s our statement.”
“I called them back and they don't want to talk,” Weinstein said. “They don't want to do the right thing.”
[UPDATE] Apparently the threat of media exposure was not enough to change their minds, but two or three hours after this story posted, they seemed to change their minds. As the Post-Dispatch reported:
On Monday morning, the wording on the invitation was changed to take out the commander's name. Weinstein said he considers that a win.
It falls short of fulling owning up and turning the episode into a learning opportunity. But MRFF's clients should be relieved, and the chances of repetition have again been diminished, protecting countless Air Force service members in the future..


crooksandliars--2020-02-11--Twitter Calls For Chuck Todd's Head For All The Wrong Reasons

There 's never a bad day to stir up a little outrage online .
I 'm not a fan of Chuck Todd , I think he 's a dreadful bothsider who does n't really understand that politics is more than a horse race , and he has me blocked on Twitter because I am a rotten thorn in his side most of the time .
So when I saw that the hashtag # FireChuckTodd was trending , I went to see why there was such a fuss .
If Twitter was to be believed , Chuck Todd had just called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' which would be a dreadful thing to say to a person who was Jewish and had parents who survived the Holocaust .
Dreadful .
Except , it turns out not to be true .
There 's a place to aim anger about this , but it 's not at Chuck Todd , who merely read a quote in The Bulwark by Jonathan Last .
Here is the entire quote in context , referring to what happened online after the Working Families Party endorsed Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders : This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not very different from Trump ’ s social network army .
By which I mean that it ’ s morally different , but functionally the same .
Unlike Trump , Sanders does not encourage online bullying himself—he only employs some people who do .
That ’ s a big difference in terms of the moral framework !
But as a functional matter , the end result is the same : An army of people ( or bots or Russians or whoever ) hounding opponents , enforcing discipline , quashing any sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking sides against the Dear Leader .
Whether or not Bernie is personally coordinating this effort makes absolutely no difference to the facts on the ground .
No other candidate has anything like this sort of digital brownshirt brigade .
I mean , except for Donald Trump .
The last line in bold there is what Chuck Todd read in his question to Ruth Marcus .
And he read it , because there is a fundamental question that follows : What if you can ’ t win the presidency without an online mob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do n't have an answer for it .
I also do n't think it was tremendously great judgment for Chuck Todd to read a quote like that aloud and put the question to Ruth Marcus without regard to what kind of a loaded term brown shirts are .
I have used that term to refer to the online mobs that Trumpers and Republicans in general like to use to silence us ...
I have all too often been the target of them .
But what Chuck Todd did there was to quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor agreed with it .
He simply quoted it .
Raw Story 's headline -- `` Chuck Todd ‘ should apologize and resign ’ : MSNBC anchor blasted for Nazi smear on leading Democrat '' -- helped light the Twitter fire , which then lit the misinformation brigade ablaze .
Here are a few screenshots of the misinformation spreading around : Here it is from a candidate for Congress primarying Debbie Wasserman Schultz : Here are others , full of rage over That Thing Chuck Todd Did Not Say : In all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be directed at Jonathan Last , who actually wrote the damned thing that Chuck Todd quoted .
This is a classic case of online misinformation and mobbing , and it was what Russia used to divide and conquer .
Republicans have learned to do this too .
Jonathan Last should not have called online Bernie supporters brownshirts for obvious reasons .
There were other ways to describe the dogpiles that happen all day , every day by people to people , regardless of whom they 're supporting .
I 've gotten it from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden people , too and yes , Bernie people .
The only candidate whose supporters have n't done it is Elizabeth Warren .
Dogpile or not , there are other ways to describe the online pushing and shoving which do not include likening a Jewish candidate 's supporters to Nazis .
Chuck Todd used marginal judgment in reading it , but he did n't endorse it .
He asked about it .
It would do that same candidate 's supporters some good to actually see what Chuck Todd said before they react .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ blowing out over a thing which did not happen .

There's never a bad day to stir up a little outrage online. I'm not a fan of Chuck Todd, I think he's a dreadful bothsider who doesn't really understand that politics is more than a horse race, and he has me blocked on Twitter because I am a rotten thorn in his side most of the time.
So when I saw that the hashtag #FireChuckTodd was trending, I went to see why there was such a fuss. If Twitter was to be believed, Chuck Todd had just called Bernie supporters online "brown shirts," which would be a dreadful thing to say to a person who was Jewish and had parents who survived the Holocaust. Dreadful.
Except, it turns out not to be true. There's a place to aim anger about this, but it's not at Chuck Todd, who merely read a quote in The Bulwark by Jonathan Last. Here is the entire quote in context, referring to what happened online after the Working Families Party endorsed Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders:
This is, as everyone else has pointed out, not very different from Trump’s social network army. By which I mean that it’s morally different, but functionally the same. Unlike Trump, Sanders does not encourage online bullying himself—he only employs some people who do. That’s a big difference in terms of the moral framework! But as a functional matter, the end result is the same: An army of people (or bots or Russians or whoever) hounding opponents, enforcing discipline, quashing any sort of dissent—and trying to preempt anyone else from taking sides against the Dear Leader. Whether or not Bernie is personally coordinating this effort makes absolutely no difference to the facts on the ground. No other candidate has anything like this sort of digital brownshirt brigade. I mean, except for Donald Trump.
The last line in bold there is what Chuck Todd read in his question to Ruth Marcus. And he read it, because there is a fundamental question that follows: What if you can’t win the presidency without an online mob?
That's a great question. I don't have an answer for it. I also don't think it was tremendously great judgment for Chuck Todd to read a quote like that aloud and put the question to Ruth Marcus without regard to what kind of a loaded term brown shirts are. I have used that term to refer to the online mobs that Trumpers and Republicans in general like to use to silence us...I have all too often been the target of them.
But what Chuck Todd did there was to quote someone. He neither endorsed the quote, nor agreed with it. He simply quoted it.
Raw Story's headline -- "Chuck Todd ‘should apologize and resign’: MSNBC anchor blasted for Nazi smear on leading Democrat" -- helped light the Twitter fire, which then lit the misinformation brigade ablaze.
Here are a few screenshots of the misinformation spreading around:
Here it is from a candidate for Congress primarying Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
Here are others, full of rage over That Thing Chuck Todd Did Not Say:
In all of these cases, the outrage should be directed at Jonathan Last, who actually wrote the damned thing that Chuck Todd quoted. This is a classic case of online misinformation and mobbing, and it was what Russia used to divide and conquer. Republicans have learned to do this too.
Jonathan Last should not have called online Bernie supporters brownshirts for obvious reasons. There were other ways to describe the dogpiles that happen all day, every day by people to people, regardless of whom they're supporting. I've gotten it from Pete people and Amy folks, occasionally Biden people, too and yes, Bernie people. The only candidate whose supporters haven't done it is Elizabeth Warren.
Dogpile or not, there are other ways to describe the online pushing and shoving which do not include likening a Jewish candidate's supporters to Nazis. Chuck Todd used marginal judgment in reading it, but he didn't endorse it. He asked about it.
It would do that same candidate's supporters some good to actually see what Chuck Todd said before they react. It looks silly for them to be blowing out over a thing which did not happen.


crooksandliars--2020-02-11--'What The Bleep Was THAT?' Nicolle Wallace Can't Believe Latest Rudy News

Nicolle Wallace 's response to Lindsey Graham 's explanation of how the Justice Department will verify Rudy Giuliani 's wingnut gossip was priceless .
`` What ? ''
An incredulous Wallace asked .
`` Rudy writes crap on napkins and hands them to Lev Parnas .
What the bleep was that ? ''
She asked Frank Figliuzzi what the crazy looked like from inside the FBI .
`` First , I 'd like the establish my own process .
It 's a conspiracy hotline .
Please dial 1-800-UTTER-BS .
Usual spelling for B.S.
, '' Figliuzzi said .
`` If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's been proven wrong by our entire intelligence community and proven to be Russian propaganda , please call 1-800-UTTER-BS .
`` Look , you mentioned the FBI .
In seriousness , we do n't know the extent , if any , to which the FBI is actually going to be involved in vetting this nonsense .
We have an agency that investigates this stuff .
It is the FBI .
ln all seriousness , here 's what 's going on .
The attorney general is saying ' I 'm going to have my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia case .
I ca n't trust the FBI to vet what Rudy 's doing .
I 've got this .
Let 's not trust our institutions .
`` That 's what 's the most disturbing thing of all of this .
The American public buying off on the fact that the AG 's going to handle all this by himself because you know what ?
We ca n't trust our institutions with it , '' he said .
`` And they confirmed what Lindsey Graham seemed to blurt out yesterday about Rudy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me ask you .
Donald Trump is on the record with your newspaper , saying that he wanted to be protected by his DOJ .
He loathed Jeff Sessions for recusing himself .
Is this a corruption of justice ?
Do you have enough information to say that or are we just heading in that direction ? ''
`` We 're heading in a direction where the attorney general no longer stands for justice .
and eventually will need to be disbarred and called to accounted for all he 's doing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Figliuzzi said .
`` Look , this is a distraction .
Put this right along side the same track as the personal AG Barr/John Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia case it 's going to dangle over us .
'Yeah , Rudy might have something .
He might have something on the Bidens .
Maybe there 's something to this Ukraine theory .
Maybe they did the meddling . '
`` And if you keep that long enough through the election , people are going to say 'Yeah , maybe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maybe we should believe the Ukraine thing . '
It 's a distraction and it 's antidemocratic . ''
Of course , he 's much too polite to mention that our corporate media is all to happy to spread these fabricated fantasies for us -- under the guise of `` fair and balanced . ''
It ai n't just Fox News doing that .

Nicolle Wallace's response to Lindsey Graham's explanation of how the Justice Department will verify Rudy Giuliani's wingnut gossip was priceless.
"What?" An incredulous Wallace asked. "Rudy writes crap on napkins and hands them to Lev Parnas. What the bleep was that?"
She asked Frank Figliuzzi what the crazy looked like from inside the FBI.
"First, I'd like the establish my own process. It's a conspiracy hotline. Please dial 1-800-UTTER-BS. Usual spelling for B.S.," Figliuzzi said.
"If you have a concocted conspiracy theory that's been proven wrong by our entire intelligence community and proven to be Russian propaganda, please call 1-800-UTTER-BS.
"Look, you mentioned the FBI. In seriousness, we don't know the extent, if any, to which the FBI is actually going to be involved in vetting this nonsense. We have an agency that investigates this stuff. It is the FBI. ln all seriousness, here's what's going on. The attorney general is saying 'I'm going to have my own investigation on the origins of the Russia case. I can't trust the FBI to vet what Rudy's doing. I've got this. Let's not trust our institutions.
"That's what's the most disturbing thing of all of this. The American public buying off on the fact that the AG's going to handle all this by himself because you know what?We can't trust our institutions with it," he said.
"And they confirmed what Lindsey Graham seemed to blurt out yesterday about Rudy Giuliani," Wallace said.
"Let me ask you. Donald Trump is on the record with your newspaper, saying that he wanted to be protected by his DOJ. He loathed Jeff Sessions for recusing himself. Is this a corruption of justice? Do you have enough information to say that or are we just heading in that direction?"
"We're heading in a direction where the attorney general no longer stands for justice. and eventually will need to be disbarred and called to accounted for all he's doing for our institutional concept of justice," Figliuzzi said.
"Look, this is a distraction. Put this right along side the same track as the personal AG Barr/John Durham investigation into the origins of the Russia case it's going to dangle over us. 'Yeah, Rudy might have something. He might have something on the Bidens. Maybe there's something to this Ukraine theory. Maybe they did the meddling.'
"And if you keep that long enough through the election, people are going to say 'Yeah, maybe that's true. Maybe Biden's worthless. Maybe we should believe the Ukraine thing.' It's a distraction and it's antidemocratic."
Of course, he's much too polite to mention that our corporate media is all to happy to spread these fabricated fantasies for us -- under the guise of "fair and balanced." It ain't just Fox News doing that.