politicususa--2020-01-10--Wide Majority Of Americans Believe Trump Is A Dangerous Commander-In-Chief

Donald Trump has worked tirelessly to craft an image of himself as a tough-talking leader that is feared by U.S. foes , but the American people – by a wide margin – believe he ’ s a dangerous commander-in-chief .
According to a poll conducted by USA TODAY/Ipsos , 52 percent of the country believes Trump ’ s behavior with Iran has been “ reckless.
” Just 34 percent of Americans disagree with that assessment .
Worse for Trump is that respondents – by a 2-1 margin – say that Trump ’ s move to kill Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of this despite the spewing in Trumpland that the president ’ s move to take out Soleimani was a show of strength .
More findings from USA TODAY show how unfavorably Trump ’ s Iran strategy is viewed by the country : But there was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East ( 69 % ) , that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland ( 63 % ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would go to war ( 62 % ) .
By 52 % -8 % , those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons .
No president has tried as hard as Donald Trump to be seen as a strong general-like figure in American politics .
Yet at home and abroad this president is seen as a weak , bumbling , incompetent and dangerous commander-in-chief .
On a frequent basis , Trump ’ s actions are viewed by the world as anywhere from laughable to terrifying – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Donald Trump has brought America to the brink of war with Iran in recent weeks – setting off a chain of events that resulted in the needless loss of life – his unfitness to be commander-in-chief is as clear as ever .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Donald Trump has worked tirelessly to craft an image of himself as a tough-talking leader that is feared by U.S. foes, but the American people – by a wide margin – believe he’s a dangerous commander-in-chief.
According to a poll conducted by USA TODAY/Ipsos, 52 percent of the country believes Trump’s behavior with Iran has been “reckless.” Just 34 percent of Americans disagree with that assessment.
Worse for Trump is that respondents – by a 2-1 margin – say that Trump’s move to kill Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani has made the world less safe.
All of this despite the spewing in Trumpland that the president’s move to take out Soleimani was a show of strength.
More findings from USA TODAY show how unfavorably Trump’s Iran strategy is viewed by the country:
But there was overwhelming agreement – in each case by more than 6-1 – that the attack made it more likely Iran would strike American interests in the Middle East (69%), that there would be terrorist attacks on the American homeland (63%), and that the United States and Iran would go to war (62%). By 52%-8%, those polled said the attack made it more likely that Iran would develop nuclear weapons.
Trump is a weak and dangerous commander-in-chief
No president has tried as hard as Donald Trump to be seen as a strong general-like figure in American politics. Yet at home and abroad this president is seen as a weak, bumbling, incompetent and dangerous commander-in-chief.
On a frequent basis, Trump’s actions are viewed by the world as anywhere from laughable to terrifying – sometimes both in the same day.
As Donald Trump has brought America to the brink of war with Iran in recent weeks – setting off a chain of events that resulted in the needless loss of life – his unfitness to be commander-in-chief is as clear as ever.
Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter


politicususa--2020-01-10--Nancy Pelosi Buries Trump By Passing New Measure To Limit His Power To Start A War With Iran

In another victory for Nancy Pelosi , the House of Representatives passed a resolution Tuesday to limit Donald Trump ’ s power to go to war with Iran without getting congressional approval .
The measure passed the House easily by a 224-194 majority , and even a handful of Republican lawmakers supported it .
As MSNBC ’ s Ari Melber pointed out on Thursday , the vote to limit Trump ’ s war power “ reflects a more unified front against potential Middle East escalation ” than we ’ ve in recent memory .
The House just passing this resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers against Iran .
The vote , 224-194 , a clear margin for the Democrats .
The bill terminates Trump ’ s hostilities against Iran , which is a rebuke , of course , to the president ’ s attack on Iran ’ s general .
The swift action presents major pushback to Trump a day after the bipartisan combination of his administration ’ s handling of this crisis and reflects a more unified front against potential Middle East escalation than the Democrats offered when George W. Bush was pushing a preemptive attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to war with Donald Trump – and she ’ s winning Since taking over as House speaker , Nancy Pelosi has waged all-out war on Donald Trump for lawlessly abusing the power of his office , whether in his extortion scheme with Ukraine or his reckless behavior that ’ s leading America to another war in the Middle East – and she ’ s winning .
Nowhere is it more clear that Pelosi is winning than in Trump ’ s own behavior , which has grown more erratic and unhinged , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Pelosi herself told TIME , “ He ’ s nervous .
Everything he says , he ’ s always projecting .
He knows the case that can be made against him .
That ’ s why he ’ s falling apart.
” Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unwell .
He has no business unilaterally taking the United States to another war in the Middle East .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
In another victory for Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives passed a resolution Tuesday to limit Donald Trump’s power to go to war with Iran without getting congressional approval.
The measure passed the House easily by a 224-194 majority, and even a handful of Republican lawmakers supported it.
As MSNBC’s Ari Melber pointed out on Thursday, the vote to limit Trump’s war power “reflects a more unified front against potential Middle East escalation” than we’ve in recent memory.
Video:
The House passed a measure on Thursday to limit Trump’s ability to start a war with Iran. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/R3a0qiRdSP — PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) January 10, 2020
More from Melber:
The House just passing this resolution to limit Donald Trump’s war powers against Iran. The vote, 224-194, a clear margin for the Democrats. The bill terminates Trump’s hostilities against Iran, which is a rebuke, of course, to the president’s attack on Iran’s general. The swift action presents major pushback to Trump a day after the bipartisan combination of his administration’s handling of this crisis and reflects a more unified front against potential Middle East escalation than the Democrats offered when George W. Bush was pushing a preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003.
Pelosi is going to war with Donald Trump – and she’s winning
Since taking over as House speaker, Nancy Pelosi has waged all-out war on Donald Trump for lawlessly abusing the power of his office, whether in his extortion scheme with Ukraine or his reckless behavior that’s leading America to another war in the Middle East – and she’s winning.
Nowhere is it more clear that Pelosi is winning than in Trump’s own behavior, which has grown more erratic and unhinged, particularly over the course of the impeachment process.
As Pelosi herself told TIME, “He’s nervous. Everything he says, he’s always projecting. He knows the case that can be made against him. That’s why he’s falling apart.”
Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unwell. He has no business unilaterally taking the United States to another war in the Middle East.
Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter


politicususa--2020-01-10--Pelosi Rips Mitch McConnell While Announcing Plan To Transmit Articles Of Impeachment

The House will be passing a resolution next week to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and name impeachment trial managers .
Pelosi wrote in a letter provided to PoliticusUSA on Friday : For weeks now , Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency , disregard for the American people ’ s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts .
Yesterday , he showed his true colors and made his intentions to stonewall a fair trial even clearer by signing on to a resolution that would dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover-up and deprives the American people of the truth .
Leader McConnell ’ s tactics are a clear indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the President ’ s violations for which he was impeached .
The American people have clearly expressed their view that we should have a fair trial with witnesses and documents , with more than 70 percent of the public stating that the President should allow his top aides to testify .
Clearly , Leader McConnell does not want to present witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people so they can make an independent judgment about the President ’ s actions .
Honoring our Constitution , the House passed two articles of impeachment against the President – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – to hold the President accountable for asking a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 elections for his own political and personal gain .
While the House was able to obtain compelling evidence of impeachable conduct , which is enough for removal , new information has emerged , which includes : On December 20 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky , a top Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) aide asked the Department of Defense to “ hold off ” on sending military aid to Ukraine .
On December 29 , revelations emerged about OMB Director and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney ’ s role in the delay of aid , the effort by lawyers at the OMB , the Department of Justice and the White House to justify the delay , and the alarm that the delay caused within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon emails , which we had subpoenaed and the President had blocked , raised serious concerns by Trump Administration officials about the legality of the President ’ s hold on aid to Ukraine .
And on January 6 , just this week , former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton announced he would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony .
His lawyers have stated he has new relevant information .
I am very proud of the courage and patriotism exhibited by our House Democratic Caucus as we support and defend the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate .
I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further .
In an impeachment trial , every Senator takes an oath to “ do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.
” Every Senator now faces a choice : to be loyal to the President or the Constitution .
No one is above the law , not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to con the American people with a show trial .
With Senate Democrats wanting the process to move forward , it was clear that Speaker Pelosi had to transmit the articles of impeachment soon .
It is very possible if the Senate votes to hear from witnesses that the impeachment trial will still be going on as Trump delivers what could be his final State Of The Union .
Impeachment is about to move forward , as Democrats will keep the pressure on for witness testimony at Trump ’ s trial .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
The House will be passing a resolution next week to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and name impeachment trial managers.
Pelosi wrote in a letter provided to PoliticusUSA on Friday:
For weeks now, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency, disregard for the American people’s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts.
Yesterday, he showed his true colors and made his intentions to stonewall a fair trial even clearer by signing on to a resolution that would dismiss the charges. A dismissal is a cover-up and deprives the American people of the truth. Leader McConnell’s tactics are a clear indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the President’s violations for which he was impeached.
The American people have clearly expressed their view that we should have a fair trial with witnesses and documents, with more than 70 percent of the public stating that the President should allow his top aides to testify. Clearly, Leader McConnell does not want to present witnesses and documents to Senators and the American people so they can make an independent judgment about the President’s actions.
Honoring our Constitution, the House passed two articles of impeachment against the President – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – to hold the President accountable for asking a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 elections for his own political and personal gain.
While the House was able to obtain compelling evidence of impeachable conduct, which is enough for removal, new information has emerged, which includes:
On December 20, new emails showed that 91 minutes after Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, a top Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aide asked the Department of Defense to “hold off” on sending military aid to Ukraine.
On December 29, revelations emerged about OMB Director and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s role in the delay of aid, the effort by lawyers at the OMB, the Department of Justice and the White House to justify the delay, and the alarm that the delay caused within the Administration.
On January 2, newly-unredacted Pentagon emails, which we had subpoenaed and the President had blocked, raised serious concerns by Trump Administration officials about the legality of the President’s hold on aid to Ukraine.
And on January 6, just this week, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton announced he would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony. His lawyers have stated he has new relevant information.
I am very proud of the courage and patriotism exhibited by our House Democratic Caucus as we support and defend the Constitution. I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.
In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or the Constitution.
No one is above the law, not even the President.
Mitch McConnell is trying to con the American people with a show trial. With Senate Democrats wanting the process to move forward, it was clear that Speaker Pelosi had to transmit the articles of impeachment soon.
It is very possible if the Senate votes to hear from witnesses that the impeachment trial will still be going on as Trump delivers what could be his final State Of The Union.
Impeachment is about to move forward, as Democrats will keep the pressure on for witness testimony at Trump’s trial.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-10--The FBI Is Investigating Russia’s Efforts To Steal 2020 For Trump

The US intelligence community is investigating Russia ’ s effort to attack the 2020 election for Trump and undermine Joe Biden .
Bloomberg reported : U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are assessing whether Russia is trying to undermine Joe Biden in its ongoing disinformation efforts with the former vice president still the front-runner in the race to challenge President Donald Trump , according to two officials familiar with the matter .
Part of the inquiry is to determine whether Russia is trying to weaken Biden by promoting controversy over his past involvement in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FBI refused to comment to Bloomberg on their investigation , but it is clear that the disinformation that is being spread by Trump and Rudy Giuliani on Biden and Ukraine is the sort of mass-scale effort that the Russians will be undertaking for Trump in 2020 .
One of the lessons that the Russians learned from 2016 is that their campaign to boost support for Trump was less effective than their disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton .
The same axis of disinformation and lies that existed in 2016 is expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Russians have their pawn in place with Trump in the White House .
They don ’ t want to see Biden because he is firmly dedicated to taking on Putin and checking Russia ’ s aggression .
This time the United States knows what ’ s coming , and hopefully , can take steps to combat the Russians 2020 election attack .
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
The US intelligence community is investigating Russia’s effort to attack the 2020 election for Trump and undermine Joe Biden.
Bloomberg reported:
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are assessing whether Russia is trying to undermine Joe Biden in its ongoing disinformation efforts with the former vice president still the front-runner in the race to challenge President Donald Trump, according to two officials familiar with the matter.
….
Part of the inquiry is to determine whether Russia is trying to weaken Biden by promoting controversy over his past involvement in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while his son worked for an energy company there.
The FBI refused to comment to Bloomberg on their investigation, but it is clear that the disinformation that is being spread by Trump and Rudy Giuliani on Biden and Ukraine is the sort of mass-scale effort that the Russians will be undertaking for Trump in 2020.
One of the lessons that the Russians learned from 2016 is that their campaign to boost support for Trump was less effective than their disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton. The same axis of disinformation and lies that existed in 2016 is expected to be louder and bolder in 2020.
The Russians have their pawn in place with Trump in the White House. They don’t want to see Biden because he is firmly dedicated to taking on Putin and checking Russia’s aggression.
This time the United States knows what’s coming, and hopefully, can take steps to combat the Russians 2020 election attack.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-10--Trump Admits He Killed Soleimani To Keep GOP Senators With Him On Impeachment

Trump told associates that he authorized the strike on Soleimani because he was being pressured by Republican Senators who will decide his impeachment fate .
The way the strike was handled has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans .
Critics say the decision was hasty , considering the risk of all-out war .
They also question whether the intelligence that prompted the action was as clear-cut and alarming as the White House has said , and see the move as doing little to further U.S. interests in the region .
Mr. Trump , after the strike , told associates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate , associates said .
The Soleimani strike was a political move that was motivated by impeachment , but it wasn ’ t done to move public opinion .
Trump tried to buy off of Some Republican impeachment trial jurors by caving to their pressure to carry out the Iran strike .
The imminent attack excuse by the administration looks to be total BS .
The White House won ’ t show Congress or the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it doesn ’ t exist .
Trump killed Soleimani to save himself from losing Republican votes at his impeachment trial .
America is less safe today because Donald Trump used foreign policy to save himself on impeachment .
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Trump told associates that he authorized the strike on Soleimani because he was being pressured by Republican Senators who will decide his impeachment fate.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
The way the strike was handled has drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans. Critics say the decision was hasty, considering the risk of all-out war. They also question whether the intelligence that prompted the action was as clear-cut and alarming as the White House has said, and see the move as doing little to further U.S. interests in the region.
Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.
The Soleimani strike was a political move that was motivated by impeachment, but it wasn’t done to move public opinion. Trump tried to buy off of Some Republican impeachment trial jurors by caving to their pressure to carry out the Iran strike.
The imminent attack excuse by the administration looks to be total BS.
The White House won’t show Congress or the American people their evidence to justify the strike because it doesn’t exist.
Trump killed Soleimani to save himself from losing Republican votes at his impeachment trial.
America is less safe today because Donald Trump used foreign policy to save himself on impeachment.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-11--Trump Is Super Mad At “Uncool” Matt Gaetz For Trying To Limit His War Powers

Trump is mad at Rep. Matt Gaetz , one of his biggest defenders in the House , after the Florida congressman voted to limit Trump ’ s war powers .
Rep. Matt Gaetz , a Florida Republican and staunch Trump ally , pushed other Republicans to vote in favor of limiting the president ’ s authority in the military confrontation with Iran , drawing ire from the president and other Republicans in Congress , according to aides and emails .
A senior White House official said it was “ super uncool ” and “ quite unwise ” for Gaetz to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s authority .
This person added that White House officials would not be returning Gaetz ’ s phone calls , text messages , “ smoke signals or his kneelings in the snow.
” Whether Trump takes revenge on the congressman , who has made hundreds of television appearances backing the president and is a frequent visitor at the White House , remains unclear .
Trump is often transactional , current and former aides say , and there is likely a path for Gaetz to return to the proverbial tent .
Matt Gaetz had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president is mad .
The standards have fallen so low that this White House has people working in it that use phrases like super uncool to describe their feelings toward other Republicans .
There is no reason to believe that Gaetz is on the outs with Trump .
The president and his circle behave more like junior high kids that serious political leaders .
Gaetz will go on Fox and Friends and say something mean about Democrats , Trump will retweet it , and all will be well .
Gaetz ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a signal that Trump could be losing his grip on the Republican Party .
Whether they want to admit it or not , Republicans might not be as afraid of Trump as they used to be .
If Trump continues to weaken , more Republicans could challenge this president .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Trump is mad at Rep. Matt Gaetz, one of his biggest defenders in the House, after the Florida congressman voted to limit Trump’s war powers.
The Washington Post reported:
Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican and staunch Trump ally, pushed other Republicans to vote in favor of limiting the president’s authority in the military confrontation with Iran, drawing ire from the president and other Republicans in Congress, according to aides and emails.
….
A senior White House official said it was “super uncool” and “quite unwise” for Gaetz to push for limits on the president’s authority. This person added that White House officials would not be returning Gaetz’s phone calls, text messages, “smoke signals or his kneelings in the snow.”
Whether Trump takes revenge on the congressman, who has made hundreds of television appearances backing the president and is a frequent visitor at the White House, remains unclear. Trump is often transactional, current and former aides say, and there is likely a path for Gaetz to return to the proverbial tent.
Matt Gaetz had a moment of clarity, and now the president is mad. The standards have fallen so low that this White House has people working in it that use phrases like super uncool to describe their feelings toward other Republicans.
There is no reason to believe that Gaetz is on the outs with Trump. The president and his circle behave more like junior high kids that serious political leaders. Gaetz will go on Fox and Friends and say something mean about Democrats, Trump will retweet it, and all will be well.
Gaetz’s vote and effort to mobilize other Republicans is a signal that Trump could be losing his grip on the Republican Party. Whether they want to admit it or not, Republicans might not be as afraid of Trump as they used to be.
If Trump continues to weaken, more Republicans could challenge this president.


politicususa--2020-01-11--Opinion: Can LeBron James Re-Define the Damaging Success Story Americans Have Come to Love?

When Josh Jacobs was drafted by the Oakland Raiders in the first round of the 2019 NFL draft , he received a signing bonus of $ 6.7 million .
The story of the star running back from the University of Alabama quickly circulated , featured in the headlines in major media outlets such as USA Today , NBC News , ESPN , and more .
Perhaps the most prominent headlines highlighted how he used his hefty signing bonus to buy a house for his father .
You see , Jacobs had been homeless as a child , living with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheap and temporary hotel rooms .
So , the purchase of the home embodied this reversal fortune , this achievement of success , most succinctly , for sure .
And one can understand why Jacobs ’ story grabbed the headlines .
Americans love this kind of success story : the rags-to-riches story , the story of individual success , not social success .
In fact , the lowlier and more degraded the social conditions one had to surmount , the more people like the story .
Such stories as Jacobs ’ move us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and celebrate an exceptional rise to wealth rather than the rule and reality of poverty and homelessness in America , which , if not inescapable , is certainly difficult to escape .
Indeed , just last week , for CNBC ’ s feature section “ make it , ” Kathleen Elkins spotlighted Jacobs again along with other professional athletes , recounting how these stars spent their first big paychecks .
She quotes Jacobs ’ reflections on his childhood : “ I normalized a lot of things growing up — like I never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sleeping in a car.
” As for his hardship , he says philosophically , “ I feel like it ’ s an advantage .
Because I grind .
I wouldn ’ t get complacent because I never had it easy.
” Jacobs ’ normalization of poverty and homelessness mirrors that of the dominant American cultural and political mentality overall .
And when he talks about poverty as a kind of blessing or advantage , rather than a social ill or a failing of our social project that accounts for the waste , destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives , well , this kind of storytelling satisfies the dominant classes in America as well .
It absolves us of responsibility for immiserating social conditions such as poverty and homelessness .
We don ’ t have to deal with the reality that the number of homeless has risen for third year in a row under Trump ’ s administration or that poverty , in places like West Virginia , is increasing rather decreasing , as the growing number of jobs available in retail and service industries do not pay a living wage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we recognize it , we are not responsible for it .
Last December , though , NBA superstar and social activist LeBron James released a commercial through Nike that challenges and makes the effort of re-writing the story of American success , of the American Dream itself .
Instead of simply focusing on the success of those who have made it out of poverty , James suggests we ask ourselves as a collective society why we allow and accept the degrading , miserable , life-repressing conditions in which so many live and work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to ask these questions when we hear stories like those of Josh Jacobs because those stories focus on his millions and normalize , even valorize , the misery .
He forecasts a larger dream than that of individual success and riches .
What could be , his commercial suggests , a more wonderful and meaningful dream than creating a society without poverty , in which people had their needs met and lived with dignity ?
What if that were the American Dream ?
He narrates the commercial to change our dream , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We always hear about an athlete ’ s humble beginnings , how they emerged from poverty or tragedy to beat the odds .
They ’ re supposed to be stories of determination that capture the dream .
They ’ re supposed to be stories that let you know that people are special .
“ But you know what would be really special ?
If there were no more humble beginnings.
” And James hasn ’ t just narrated this story in a commercial .
He has realized this story in his founding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his hometown of Akron , Ohio , a school that educates some 1,400 kids .
And it doesn ’ t just educate them .
It has a food pantry to help nourish families in need and provides transportation to make sure students can get to school safely and regularly .
James is re-defining his own success in social terms , not in terms of his individual bank account .
His success story focuses not on the individual outcome but on the social conditions in which masses of Americans are living , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is in using the resources he has to address those conditions , seeking to eliminate poverty and help people develop and grow humanely and fully .
He doesn ’ t valorize or even accept the conditions of scarcity and suffering in which many live ; he doesn ’ t buy into the damaging and inhumane rationalization that having to overcome such obstacles and suffering makes people stronger and better somehow .
He recognizes that people need support , require a good soil , so to speak , if their abilities and talents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognizes that cultivating and developing people to their full capacity benefits society as a whole , whereas wasting and under-developing people creates a drag on society , beyond just being inhumane .
While many in our maniacally meritocratic society like to rationalize poverty as a condition people deserve because they just haven ’ t tried hard enough or because they just aren ’ t inherently lives of value , lives that matter , James is re-writing the story to highlight the responsibility of creating a society that recognizes all people ’ s inherent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultivate that value for the benefit of all , not just for individual wealth .
Let ’ s be clear : changing entrenched social narratives is hard , as is transforming how we dream .
James is offering a new content for our American Dream .
Will you dream a big dream with him ?

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
When Josh Jacobs was drafted by the Oakland Raiders in the first round of the 2019 NFL draft, he received a signing bonus of $6.7 million. The story of the star running back from the University of Alabama quickly circulated, featured in the headlines in major media outlets such as USA Today, NBC News, ESPN, and more.
Perhaps the most prominent headlines highlighted how he used his hefty signing bonus to buy a house for his father. You see, Jacobs had been homeless as a child, living with his father and his siblings in cars or cheap and temporary hotel rooms. So, the purchase of the home embodied this reversal fortune, this achievement of success, most succinctly, for sure.
And one can understand why Jacobs’ story grabbed the headlines. Americans love this kind of success story: the rags-to-riches story, the story of individual success, not social success. In fact, the lowlier and more degraded the social conditions one had to surmount, the more people like the story.
Such stories as Jacobs’ move us, or distract us, to focus on and celebrate an exceptional rise to wealth rather than the rule and reality of poverty and homelessness in America, which, if not inescapable, is certainly difficult to escape.
Indeed, just last week, for CNBC’s feature section “make it,” Kathleen Elkins spotlighted Jacobs again along with other professional athletes, recounting how these stars spent their first big paychecks.
She quotes Jacobs’ reflections on his childhood:
“I normalized a lot of things growing up — like I never thought, Damn, I’m sleeping in a car.”
As for his hardship, he says philosophically, “I feel like it’s an advantage. Because I grind. I wouldn’t get complacent because I never had it easy.”
Jacobs’ normalization of poverty and homelessness mirrors that of the dominant American cultural and political mentality overall.
And when he talks about poverty as a kind of blessing or advantage, rather than a social ill or a failing of our social project that accounts for the waste, destruction, and suffering of millions of American lives, well, this kind of storytelling satisfies the dominant classes in America as well. It absolves us of responsibility for immiserating social conditions such as poverty and homelessness.
We don’t have to deal with the reality that the number of homeless has risen for third year in a row under Trump’s administration or that poverty, in places like West Virginia, is increasing rather decreasing, as the growing number of jobs available in retail and service industries do not pay a living wage. Or, more appropriately, if we recognize it, we are not responsible for it.
Last December, though, NBA superstar and social activist LeBron James released a commercial through Nike that challenges and makes the effort of re-writing the story of American success, of the American Dream itself.
Instead of simply focusing on the success of those who have made it out of poverty, James suggests we ask ourselves as a collective society why we allow and accept the degrading, miserable, life-repressing conditions in which so many live and work in the United States.
We tend not to ask these questions when we hear stories like those of Josh Jacobs because those stories focus on his millions and normalize, even valorize, the misery.
He forecasts a larger dream than that of individual success and riches. What could be, his commercial suggests, a more wonderful and meaningful dream than creating a society without poverty, in which people had their needs met and lived with dignity? What if that were the American Dream?
He narrates the commercial to change our dream, questioning how we tell success stories:
“We always hear about an athlete’s humble beginnings, how they emerged from poverty or tragedy to beat the odds. They’re supposed to be stories of determination that capture the dream. They’re supposed to be stories that let you know that people are special.
“But you know what would be really special? If there were no more humble beginnings.”
And James hasn’t just narrated this story in a commercial. He has realized this story in his founding and creation of his I Promise school in his hometown of Akron, Ohio, a school that educates some 1,400 kids.
And it doesn’t just educate them. It has a food pantry to help nourish families in need and provides transportation to make sure students can get to school safely and regularly.
James is re-defining his own success in social terms, not in terms of his individual bank account. His success story focuses not on the individual outcome but on the social conditions in which masses of Americans are living, and his measure of success is how effective he is in using the resources he has to address those conditions, seeking to eliminate poverty and help people develop and grow humanely and fully.
He doesn’t valorize or even accept the conditions of scarcity and suffering in which many live; he doesn’t buy into the damaging and inhumane rationalization that having to overcome such obstacles and suffering makes people stronger and better somehow.
He recognizes that people need support, require a good soil, so to speak, if their abilities and talents are to be cultivated. And he recognizes that cultivating and developing people to their full capacity benefits society as a whole, whereas wasting and under-developing people creates a drag on society, beyond just being inhumane.
While many in our maniacally meritocratic society like to rationalize poverty as a condition people deserve because they just haven’t tried hard enough or because they just aren’t inherently lives of value, lives that matter, James is re-writing the story to highlight the responsibility of creating a society that recognizes all people’s inherent value and provides conditions that nurture and cultivate that value for the benefit of all, not just for individual wealth.
Let’s be clear: changing entrenched social narratives is hard, as is transforming how we dream.
James is offering a new content for our American Dream. Will you dream a big dream with him?


politicususa--2020-01-11--Trump Is Now Just Making Stuff Up To Justify His Iran Attack

Rep. Ted Lieu ( D-CA ) said that the White House ’ s changing story on the Iran threat should cause the American people to ask if Trump is making stuff up .
I went through the briefing and I agree with Republican senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul that that briefing was sorely lacking in details , information .
It was basically essentially trust us and that ’ s not what they should be doing .
The administration should be providing actual evidence to members of congress .
I ’ ve learned more from watching MSNBC and reading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the end of the day it ’ s clear we ’ re less safe now than we were in the beginning of the year from Donald Trump ’ s impulsive actions .
When Lieu was asked about Trump ’ s claim that Iran was planning attacks on four US embassies , he answered , “ I can ’ t get into details of what was said .
What I can say , the administration ’ s story on what constitutes an imminent threat keeps changing .
And it caused the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff up ?
” Trump is doing the same things now that he did before he ran for president .
Remember Trump ’ s team of investigators that were dispatched to find Obama ’ s real birth certificate ?
They didn ’ t exist .
Making stuff up is what Donald Trump has always done .
The Trump administration doesn ’ t have any evidence to support their claims of threat , because there isn ’ t any .
Reading between the lines of Rep. Lieu ’ s answer , it is clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never mentioned in the briefing .
Trump is in trouble , so he is making things up to justify his actions after the fact .
The president thought that the Soleimani attack would boost his reelection campaign .
Instead , it has shown why he must be voted out of office in 2020 .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said that the White House’s changing story on the Iran threat should cause the American people to ask if Trump is making stuff up.
Rep. Lieu said on MSNBC:
I went through the briefing and I agree with Republican senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul that that briefing was sorely lacking in details, information. It was basically essentially trust us and that’s not what they should be doing. The administration should be providing actual evidence to members of congress. I’ve learned more from watching MSNBC and reading the paper than I have from that briefing. At the end of the day it’s clear we’re less safe now than we were in the beginning of the year from Donald Trump’s impulsive actions.
When Lieu was asked about Trump’s claim that Iran was planning attacks on four US embassies, he answered, “I can’t get into details of what was said. What I can say, the administration’s story on what constitutes an imminent threat keeps changing. And it caused the American people to ask is the administration making stuff up?”
Video:
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) wouldn't talk about the Iran briefing but said that the changing Trump story about the "imminent threat" leads one to ask if he is making stuff up. pic.twitter.com/IHv4CLGMSj — Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) January 11, 2020
Trump is doing the same things now that he did before he ran for president. Remember Trump’s team of investigators that were dispatched to find Obama’s real birth certificate? They didn’t exist.
Making stuff up is what Donald Trump has always done.
The Trump administration doesn’t have any evidence to support their claims of threat, because there isn’t any.
Reading between the lines of Rep. Lieu’s answer, it is clear that Iran attacking four US embassies were never mentioned in the briefing.
Trump is in trouble, so he is making things up to justify his actions after the fact.
The president thought that the Soleimani attack would boost his reelection campaign. Instead, it has shown why he must be voted out of office in 2020.
https://www.politicususa.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=352651&action=edit


politicususa--2020-01-11--Movement To Block Trump’s Iran War Grows As Mike Lee Co-Sponsors Sanders Bill

Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) has agreed to co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s bill to block Trump from getting any money for an Iran war .
In a joint statement provided to PoliticusUSA , Sens .
Lee and Sanders ( I-VT ) said : As United States Senators , we often disagree on many issues .
But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship .
The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear .
They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vests Congressand only Congresswith the power to declare war and to direct government spending .
The American people ’ s elected representatives have a duty to publicly debate and vote on military action before we send our brave servicemembers into harm ’ s way or spend a penny on military hostilities .
Our billthe No War Against Iran Actutilizes Congress ’ s power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran .
As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars , the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay .
We are proud to have worked together in a bipartisan way to help end the disastrous , unauthorized U.S. war in Yemen , which has killed tens of thousands of innocent people over the past five years .
Last year , for the first time in American history , the House and Senate passed our War Powers Resolution to end that horrific conflict .
We are committed to doing everything in our power to work together once again and build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconstitutional war with Iran .
Speaker of the House Pelosi has already said that the House version of the bill will be voted on .
The House version is likely to pass .
Sen. Lee signaled after the administration briefed the Senate on the Soleimani strike by telling them not to debate Trump ’ s war powers that he was open to supporting legislation to limit Trump ’ s ability to launch a war with Iran .
The odds of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell voluntarily bringing the bill to the floor for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so Democrats are going to need to force a vote .
Sen. Lee is likely to not be the only Senate Republican to support this bill .
The movement to check Trump ’ s war powers is growing in Congress .
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has agreed to co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders’s bill to block Trump from getting any money for an Iran war.
In a joint statement provided to PoliticusUSA, Sens. Lee and Sanders (I-VT) said:
As United States Senators, we often disagree on many issues. But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship. The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear. They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy.
That is why Article I of the Constitution vests Congressand only Congresswith the power to declare war and to direct government spending. The American people’s elected representatives have a duty to publicly debate and vote on military action before we send our brave servicemembers into harm’s way or spend a penny on military hostilities.
Our billthe No War Against Iran Actutilizes Congress’s power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran. As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of dollars, the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay.
We are proud to have worked together in a bipartisan way to help end the disastrous, unauthorized U.S. war in Yemen, which has killed tens of thousands of innocent people over the past five years. Last year, for the first time in American history, the House and Senate passed our War Powers Resolution to end that horrific conflict. We are committed to doing everything in our power to work together once again and build bipartisan majorities in order to prevent an unconstitutional war with Iran.
Speaker of the House Pelosi has already said that the House version of the bill will be voted on. The House version is likely to pass. Sen. Lee signaled after the administration briefed the Senate on the Soleimani strike by telling them not to debate Trump’s war powers that he was open to supporting legislation to limit Trump’s ability to launch a war with Iran.
The odds of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell voluntarily bringing the bill to the floor for a vote are close to zero, so Democrats are going to need to force a vote.
Sen. Lee is likely to not be the only Senate Republican to support this bill. The movement to check Trump’s war powers is growing in Congress.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-11--Trump Wants To Start A War With Iran Because He’s Obsessed With Looking Tougher Than Obama

As the administration tries to deflect questions surrounding its crumbling rationale for killing a top Iranian general , the real reason for Donald Trump ’ s march to war with Iran has always been clear .
Trump is simply obsessed with being seen as tougher than Barack Obama , so everything he says and does is an attempt to achieve that goal .
As Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post told MSNBC ’ s Joy Reid on Saturday , it is Trump ’ s insecurity about Obama that has pushed America dangerously close to another military conflict in the Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this whole mess , one , because Trump blew up Soleimani , but he junked the nuclear deal , ” Capehart said .
“ When he does this … what he ’ s doing also is magnifying his insecurities.
” Capehart explained how Trump ’ s Iran policies tie directly to his insecurities about Barack Obama : So now we see him blaming once again President Obama for the Iran nuclear deal which we ’ re in this whole mess , one , because Trump blew up Soleimani .
But he junked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay , we ’ re going to fire up our weapons system because you ’ ve walked away from it , you ’ ve killed the equivalent of our CIA Director , Defense Secretary .
And then Trump circles around and says , well , because they ’ re doing this , we ’ re going to go and do these things against them .
President Trump , to Tara Dowdell ’ s point , he ’ s the master of projection .
And when he does this , when he projects onto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what he ’ s doing also is magnifying his insecurities .
I think three years into this presidency , almost five years into him coming down that escalator and into our lives in a major way , we are now hip to the fact that everything that comes out of his mouth , everything that comes through on his Twitter feed is projection .
But it ’ s also , hey , world here are my insecurities right out there for you to see and ponder .
Donald Trump doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just a few years ago , in fact , he didn ’ t even know who Soleimani was , despite his new claims that the lranian leader should have been taken out long ago .
Every decision he makes , whether it ’ s in international or domestic affairs , is driven by his desire to undo the record of Barack Obama .
Ultimately , Donald Trump will never achieve his goal of being seen as tougher and smarter than Barack Obama , but this dangerous obsession has made America and the @ @ @ @

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
As the administration tries to deflect questions surrounding its crumbling rationale for killing a top Iranian general, the real reason for Donald Trump’s march to war with Iran has always been clear.
Trump is simply obsessed with being seen as tougher than Barack Obama, so everything he says and does is an attempt to achieve that goal.
As Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post told MSNBC’s Joy Reid on Saturday, it is Trump’s insecurity about Obama that has pushed America dangerously close to another military conflict in the Middle East.
“We’re in this whole mess, one, because Trump blew up Soleimani, but he junked the nuclear deal,” Capehart said. “When he does this … what he’s doing also is magnifying his insecurities.”
Video:
Capehart explained how Trump’s Iran policies tie directly to his insecurities about Barack Obama:
So now we see him blaming once again President Obama for the Iran nuclear deal which we’re in this whole mess, one, because Trump blew up Soleimani. But he junked the nuclear deal. The Iranians say, okay, we’re going to fire up our weapons system because you’ve walked away from it, you’ve killed the equivalent of our CIA Director, Defense Secretary. And then Trump circles around and says, well, because they’re doing this, we’re going to go and do these things against them. President Trump, to Tara Dowdell’s point, he’s the master of projection. And when he does this, when he projects onto other people what he would do himself, what he’s doing also is magnifying his insecurities. I think three years into this presidency, almost five years into him coming down that escalator and into our lives in a major way, we are now hip to the fact that everything that comes out of his mouth, everything that comes through on his Twitter feed is projection. But it’s also, hey, world here are my insecurities right out there for you to see and ponder.
Trump’s dangerous obsession with Barack Obama
Donald Trump doesn’t know the first thing about foreign policy. Just a few years ago, in fact, he didn’t even know who Soleimani was, despite his new claims that the lranian leader should have been taken out long ago.
Every decision he makes, whether it’s in international or domestic affairs, is driven by his desire to undo the record of Barack Obama.
Ultimately, Donald Trump will never achieve his goal of being seen as tougher and smarter than Barack Obama, but this dangerous obsession has made America and the world less safe.
Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter


politicususa--2020-01-11--Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson Blames Trump’s Reckless Iran Policy For Plane Shoot-Down

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said Donald Trump ’ s reckless policy in Iran helped cause the “ unintentional ” shoot-down of a passenger jet that left 176 innocent people dead .
During a discussion with MSNBC ’ s Joy Reid , Wilkerson – who also served as chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell – said Iran ’ s downing of a Ukrainian jet was the product of this administration ’ s disastrous policy in the region .
“ When you create maximum tensions , as Pompeo is so glib in saying , between two states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are going to have that sort of thing happen , ” the retired colonel said .
I would point out that the recent shoot-down is a product of that sordid history .
When you create maximum tensions , as Pompeo is so glib in saying , between two states like Iran and the United States , you are going to have that sort of thing happen .
It ’ s a tragic death of innocence , if you will , that accompanies this kind of really stupid purblind relationship between states in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoot-down taking place in a universe where Trump didn ’ t take out Soleimani Since day one of his presidency , Donald Trump has sought to ratchet up tensions between the United States and Iran .
This came after the Obama-Biden administration worked tirelessly to keep the Iranians check , which they were able to with a hard fought nuclear agreement .
Seeking to reverse this policy because it had Obama ’ s name attached to it , Trump pulled out of the Iranian deal , slapped more sanctions on the country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , which this administration took to a new level by bombing an Iranian general without any evidence to justify their claims that he posed an imminent threat to the U.S .
In the midst of Iran ’ s retaliation for the U.S. strike , they “ unintentionally ” shot down a passenger jet with nearly 200 people onboard .
There is no question that Iran pulled the trigger that ultimately led to this tragedy , but it ’ s hard to imagine that this would have happened if not for Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said Donald Trump’s reckless policy in Iran helped cause the “unintentional” shoot-down of a passenger jet that left 176 innocent people dead.
During a discussion with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Wilkerson – who also served as chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell – said Iran’s downing of a Ukrainian jet was the product of this administration’s disastrous policy in the region.
“When you create maximum tensions, as Pompeo is so glib in saying, between two states like Iran and the United States, you are going to have that sort of thing happen,” the retired colonel said.
Video:
Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson pins the blame on Trump for ratcheting up tensions with Iran, which led to the shoot-down of a passenger jet. #ctl #p2 #amjoy pic.twitter.com/66Oz2YEgdD — PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) January 11, 2020
Col. Wilkerson said:
I would point out that the recent shoot-down is a product of that sordid history. When you create maximum tensions, as Pompeo is so glib in saying, between two states like Iran and the United States, you are going to have that sort of thing happen. It’s a tragic death of innocence, if you will, that accompanies this kind of really stupid purblind relationship between states in the world.
Hard to imagine the shoot-down taking place in a universe where Trump didn’t take out Soleimani
Since day one of his presidency, Donald Trump has sought to ratchet up tensions between the United States and Iran. This came after the Obama-Biden administration worked tirelessly to keep the Iranians check, which they were able to with a hard fought nuclear agreement.
Seeking to reverse this policy because it had Obama’s name attached to it, Trump pulled out of the Iranian deal, slapped more sanctions on the country and put the two nations on a collision course, which this administration took to a new level by bombing an Iranian general without any evidence to justify their claims that he posed an imminent threat to the U.S.
In the midst of Iran’s retaliation for the U.S. strike, they “unintentionally” shot down a passenger jet with nearly 200 people onboard.
There is no question that Iran pulled the trigger that ultimately led to this tragedy, but it’s hard to imagine that this would have happened if not for Donald Trump’s initial decision to take out Soleimani.
Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter


politicususa--2020-01-11--Trump Has Saturday Morning Breakdown And Claims His Approval Rating Is Over 60%

Donald Trump ’ s pattern of mental decline continued into Saturday morning as he took to Twitter to have another breakdown .
In a string of posts , Trump launched attacks on the FBI , accused Democrats of defending killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , and called Nancy Pelosi the “ absolute worst Speaker of the House in U.S. history !
” At one point during his Twitter tantrum , Trump claimed that his approval rating – according to his stable genius calculations – should actually be over 60 percent .
He wrote , “ 53 % Approval Rating overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent because of the Trump ‘ thing ?
’ ) .
Thank you !
” The bad news for Trump , of course , is that no such credible poll showing his approval rating at 53 percent actually exists , much less one showing it in the 60s .
According to RealClearPolitics , Trump ’ s overall approval rating stands where it always has in the low 40s .
The president also claimed that a “ vast majority ” of the American people want Democrats to stop the impeachment process and “ move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts tell another story .
According to FiveThirtyEight , a majority of Americans support Trump ’ s impeachment .
Forty-seven percent even feel he should be removed from office .
To anyone who ’ s visited a YouTube comment section or dove into the frightening right-wing internet universe , Trump ’ s remarks might sound familiar .
They are operating in a completely fact-free universe that ’ s propped up by outlets like Fox News .
But again , this is the president of the United States of America , the most powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that everything Donald Trump says and does is informed by a steady diet of right-wing propaganda should terrifying every American who cares about the safety and future of this country .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Donald Trump’s pattern of mental decline continued into Saturday morning as he took to Twitter to have another breakdown.
In a string of posts, Trump launched attacks on the FBI, accused Democrats of defending killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, and called Nancy Pelosi the “absolute worst Speaker of the House in U.S. history!”
At one point during his Twitter tantrum, Trump claimed that his approval rating – according to his stable genius calculations – should actually be over 60 percent.
He wrote, “53% Approval Rating overall (can we add 7 to 10 percent because of the Trump ‘thing?’). Thank you!”
95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, a record. 53% Approval Rating overall (can we add 7 to 10 percent because of the Trump “thing?”). Thank you! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2020
The bad news for Trump, of course, is that no such credible poll showing his approval rating at 53 percent actually exists, much less one showing it in the 60s.
According to RealClearPolitics, Trump’s overall approval rating stands where it always has in the low 40s.
The president also claimed that a “vast majority” of the American people want Democrats to stop the impeachment process and “move on.”
New polling shows that the totally partisan Impeachment Hoax is going nowhere. A vast majority want the Do Nothing Democrats to move on to other things now! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2020
But once again, the facts tell another story. According to FiveThirtyEight, a majority of Americans support Trump’s impeachment. Forty-seven percent even feel he should be removed from office.
Trump sounds like a crazy uncle tweeting from a doomsday bunker
To anyone who’s visited a YouTube comment section or dove into the frightening right-wing internet universe, Trump’s remarks might sound familiar. They are operating in a completely fact-free universe that’s propped up by outlets like Fox News.
But again, this is the president of the United States of America, the most powerful person in the world.
The fact that everything Donald Trump says and does is informed by a steady diet of right-wing propaganda should terrifying every American who cares about the safety and future of this country.
Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter


politicususa--2020-01-11--Trump Attacks The FBI As They Investigate 2020 Russia Meddling

Donald Trump as president of the United States , is calling on the top law enforcement agency in the country @ @ @ @ @ be prosecuted for fraud .
It is not a coincidence that Trump is calling for @ @ @ @ @ one day after it was reported that they are investigating Russian efforts to attack the @ @ @ @ @ campaign against former vice president Joe Biden .
Trump ’ s motives are easy to @ @ @ @ @ is still trying to discredit the first Russia investigation because he needs Russian interference to @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidential election .
Trump has been smearing law enforcement , not because they @ @ @ @ @ as he loves to claim .
Even his own IG report found that there no @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Russia investigation .
There was also no FBI bias or spying on the @ @ @ @ @ is the only convicted fraudster in this conversation .
For more discussion about this story @ @ @ @ @ MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Donald Trump as president of the United States, is calling on the top law enforcement agency in the country, the FBI, to be prosecuted for fraud.
Trump tweeted:
“FBI Director apologizes for FISA Errors (of which there were far to many to be a coincidence!).” @FoxNews Chris, what about all of the lives that were ruined because of the so-called “errors?” Are these “dirty cops” going to pay a big price for the fraud they committed? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2020
It is not a coincidence that Trump is calling for the prosecution of the FBI one day after it was reported that they are investigating Russian efforts to attack the 2020 election with a disinformation campaign against former vice president Joe Biden.
Trump’s motives are easy to see through. The president is still trying to discredit the first Russia investigation because he needs Russian interference to help him win this year’s presidential election.
Trump has been smearing law enforcement, not because they are “dirty cops” as he loves to claim. Even his own IG report found that there no political motives in the FBI’s Russia investigation. There was also no FBI bias or spying on the Trump campaign.
Donald Trump is the only convicted fraudster in this conversation.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-12--Opinion: JP Morgan Client Report Reveals Trump’s Wealth Agenda Harms Average Americans’ Economic Wel

Opinion: JP Morgan Client Report Reveals Trump’s Wealth Agenda Harms Average Americans’ Economic Well-Being

The wealthy often complain when sane and reasonable minds point out the dangers and reality of the obscenely class-stratified nature of U.S. society .
These complaints often find expression in such phrases as the following : “ There go those radical leftists playing the class struggle card again.
” “ These radical leftists just want to punish success in America.
” “ Why do these radical leftists want to foster divisions among us by talking about class struggle ?
The wealthy are great examples of what can happen for people in America if they work hard.
” And , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples , anyone who wants to even broach issues of the gross income inequality and class stratification characterizing U.S. society is , of course , automatically branded a “ radical leftist , ” as though such a label is sufficient to disarm serious intellectual engagement with our class realities .
A look at recent reporting by CNBC ’ s Maggie Fitzgerald regarding an annual outlook report from J.P Morgan ’ s private bank to its wealthy clients , for whom it manages $ 2.2 trillion , reveals the reality of competing class interests—of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of concern for the economic prospects of average working Americans—and even an antagonism to the average working American ’ s well-being if it any way impacts their ability to accumulate even more excessive wealth .
Moreover , this report reveals the bank ’ s support for a Trump agenda that protects the money of the wealthy , even if it not creating a healthy economy that improves the economic status of all .
Fitzgerald , indeed , summarizes a major thrust of the report as forecasting that “ a presidential victory from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest threats to their money in 2020.
” Notice that the “ radical leftist candidate ” was not characterized as a threat to the economy or economic health of the American working-class majority but rather as a threat to the money of the wealthy .
These are two very distinct animals .
According to Fitzgerald , Michael Cembalest , chairman of market and investment strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset Management , declared “ a progressive overhaul of the U.S. economy after the election ” as among the most significant threats to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the report , according to Fitzgerald , included a ban on stock buybacks , increased corporate tax rates , collective bargaining and a break-up of big tech as distinct possibilities .
In short , the report defines as perils to the wealthy such conditions as workers having more democratic rights in the workplace and more bargaining leverage in negotiating wages and benefits , or corporations , such as Amazon , actually paying some taxes to support the infrastructure that makes its success possible .
Basically , the kinds of economic policies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to improve the lots of all are precisely what J.P. Morgan ’ s private sees as threats , as unwelcome developments , when it comes to protecting the $ 2.2 trillion it manages for its wealthy clients .
The report makes clear that the bank ’ s objectives , in serving its wealth clients , is to work and wish against the policies and developments that would actually improve the lives of the majority of Americans .
It seems class struggle is alive and well in our clearly class-stratified America .
J.P. Morgan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of its wealthy clients as at odds with the economic interests of wage-earners .
Indeed , while the report suggests that “ wage inflation ” could pose a risk as well to the wealth of the bank ’ s clients , it finally dismissed inflation as a major concern because of the “ decline in labor bargaining power , the increased speed of retail price readjustments , [ and ] the impact of globalization on wages.
” No worries , dear wealthy , workers are losing bargaining power and global competition is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have to be concerned about any improvement in their economic well-being or about them having any more power or voice to exercise in the spirit of democracy .
What can the majority of Americans learn from this report ?
By which I mean how to read their political and economic interests when confronted by the texts our political and economic leaders issue every day .
Most illuminating in this regard , perhaps , is Douglass ’ account in The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass of his learning to read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the importance of reading when his master forbids his wife to teach him precisely because “ it would forever unfit him to be a slave , ” to play his role as worker in the class system of slavery .
Douglass recounts the moment when his master scolds his wife for teaching him to read and his concomitant “ new and special revelation , ” of his political interests , as he comes to understand the denial of literacy as part of “ the white man ’ s power to enslave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the master is saying is true and that the result of the slave ’ s achievement of literacy will in fact be in some measure the undoing of the system of slavery itself .
Douglass represents reading not just as an act of assimilating the meaning of words but as an act of discerning , of grasping , one ’ s political and economic interests .
Douglass doesn ’ t learn to read the same way his master does but rather reads the master ’ s statements negatively to decipher the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic interests , such that we see that ways of reading are politicized and differentially conditioned by one ’ s position in the larger social power structure .
“ What he most dreaded , that I most desired .
What he most loved , I most hated .
That which to him was a great evil , to be carefully shunned , was a great good , to be diligently sought.
” Reading J.P. Morgan ’ s report , we can decipher what that bank most dreads , the American majority should most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ progressive overhaul of the economy ” by a “ radical leftist ” candidate might deliver economic policy that serves the American majority , even if it doesn ’ t protect the rich ’ s money ?

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
The wealthy often complain when sane and reasonable minds point out the dangers and reality of the obscenely class-stratified nature of U.S. society.
These complaints often find expression in such phrases as the following:
“There go those radical leftists playing the class struggle card again.”
“These radical leftists just want to punish success in America.”
“Why do these radical leftists want to foster divisions among us by talking about class struggle? The wealthy are great examples of what can happen for people in America if they work hard.”
And, of course, as I suggest through my examples, anyone who wants to even broach issues of the gross income inequality and class stratification characterizing U.S. society is, of course, automatically branded a “radical leftist,” as though such a label is sufficient to disarm serious intellectual engagement with our class realities.
A look at recent reporting by CNBC’s Maggie Fitzgerald regarding an annual outlook report from J.P Morgan’s private bank to its wealthy clients, for whom it manages $2.2 trillion, reveals the reality of competing class interests—of class struggle—in America and the complete lack of concern for the economic prospects of average working Americans—and even an antagonism to the average working American’s well-being if it any way impacts their ability to accumulate even more excessive wealth.
Moreover, this report reveals the bank’s support for a Trump agenda that protects the money of the wealthy, even if it not creating a healthy economy that improves the economic status of all.
Fitzgerald, indeed, summarizes a major thrust of the report as forecasting that “a presidential victory from a radical leftist candidate” as “among the biggest threats to their money in 2020.”
Notice that the “radical leftist candidate” was not characterized as a threat to the economy or economic health of the American working-class majority but rather as a threat to the money of the wealthy. These are two very distinct animals.
According to Fitzgerald, Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset Management, declared “a progressive overhaul of the U.S. economy after the election” as among the most significant threats to their wealth.
Elements of this overhaul mentioned in the report, according to Fitzgerald, included a ban on stock buybacks, increased corporate tax rates, collective bargaining and a break-up of big tech as distinct possibilities.
In short, the report defines as perils to the wealthy such conditions as workers having more democratic rights in the workplace and more bargaining leverage in negotiating wages and benefits, or corporations, such as Amazon, actually paying some taxes to support the infrastructure that makes its success possible.
Basically, the kinds of economic policies that would foster a healthy economy that functioned to improve the lots of all are precisely what J.P. Morgan’s private sees as threats, as unwelcome developments, when it comes to protecting the $2.2 trillion it manages for its wealthy clients.
The report makes clear that the bank’s objectives, in serving its wealth clients, is to work and wish against the policies and developments that would actually improve the lives of the majority of Americans.
It seems class struggle is alive and well in our clearly class-stratified America. J.P. Morgan certainly thinks so, identifying the class interests of its wealthy clients as at odds with the economic interests of wage-earners.
Indeed, while the report suggests that “wage inflation” could pose a risk as well to the wealth of the bank’s clients, it finally dismissed inflation as a major concern because of the “decline in labor bargaining power, the increased speed of retail price readjustments, [and] the impact of globalization on wages.”
No worries, dear wealthy, workers are losing bargaining power and global competition is driving down wages, so we don’t have to be concerned about any improvement in their economic well-being or about them having any more power or voice to exercise in the spirit of democracy.
What can the majority of Americans learn from this report?
How, precisely, to read.
By which I mean how to read their political and economic interests when confronted by the texts our political and economic leaders issue every day.
Most illuminating in this regard, perhaps, is Douglass’ account in The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass of his learning to read, or perhaps more precisely his learning of the importance of reading when his master forbids his wife to teach him precisely because “it would forever unfit him to be a slave,” to play his role as worker in the class system of slavery.
Douglass recounts the moment when his master scolds his wife for teaching him to read and his concomitant “new and special revelation,” of his political interests, as he comes to understand the denial of literacy as part of “the white man’s power to enslave the black man.” He becomes confident that what the master is saying is true and that the result of the slave’s achievement of literacy will in fact be in some measure the undoing of the system of slavery itself.
Douglass represents reading not just as an act of assimilating the meaning of words but as an act of discerning, of grasping, one’s political and economic interests. Douglass doesn’t learn to read the same way his master does but rather reads the master’s statements negatively to decipher the reality of his situation and his political and economic interests, such that we see that ways of reading are politicized and differentially conditioned by one’s position in the larger social power structure.
Douglass writes,
“What he most dreaded, that I most desired. What he most loved, I most hated. That which to him was a great evil, to be carefully shunned, was a great good, to be diligently sought.”
Reading J.P. Morgan’s report, we can decipher what that bank most dreads, the American majority should most desire.
Could it be that a “progressive overhaul of the economy” by a “radical leftist” candidate might deliver economic policy that serves the American majority, even if it doesn’t protect the rich’s money?


politicususa--2020-01-12--Trump Demands That The Senate Not Hold His Impeachment Trial

In a tweet , Trump called on the Senate not hold an impeachment trial and to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him .
The president has gone from demanding an impeachment trial to demanding an impeachment trial with witnesses to now wanting no impeachment trial at all .
Trump wants Mitch McConnell to make it all go away .
However , as Speaker of the House Pelosi said on ABC ’ s This Week , “ Let ’ s be optimistic about the future , a future that will not have Donald Trump in the White House one way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will have an election if we don ’ t have him removed sooner .
But , again , he ’ ll be impeached forever.
” It doesn ’ t matter what Mitch McConnell does , because he can ’ t make impeachment go away .
For the rest of his life , Donald Trump is going to be an impeached president .
It is a stain on the Trump name that will linger for generations .
A dismissal of the articles will not make the impeachment of Donald J. Trump disappear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
In a tweet, Trump called on the Senate not hold an impeachment trial and to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him.
Trump tweeted:
Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020
The president has gone from demanding an impeachment trial to demanding an impeachment trial with witnesses to now wanting no impeachment trial at all. Trump wants Mitch McConnell to make it all go away.
However, as Speaker of the House Pelosi said on ABC’s This Week, “Let’s be optimistic about the future, a future that will not have Donald Trump in the White House one way or another. Ten months from now we will have an election if we don’t have him removed sooner. But, again, he’ll be impeached forever.”
It doesn’t matter what Mitch McConnell does, because he can’t make impeachment go away. For the rest of his life, Donald Trump is going to be an impeached president. It is a stain on the Trump name that will linger for generations.
A dismissal of the articles will not make the impeachment of Donald J. Trump disappear.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-12--Nancy Pelosi Calls Trump Crazy On National Television

When asked about Trump ’ s tweets , Pelosi said that they are projections of his own behavior , so when he calls her crazy , he is crazy .
PELOSI : He ’ s not worth it , but when he crossed that line on Ukraine he violated the constitution in such a way that could not be ignored .
So again , I don ’ t like to spend too much time on his crazy tweets , because everything he says is a projection .
When he calls someone crazy he knows that he is .
Everything he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to who he is .
But again , it ’ s Sunday morning .
Let ’ s be optimistic about the future , a future that will not have Donald Trump in the White House one way or another .
Ten months from now we will have an election if we don ’ t have him removed sooner .
But , again , he ’ ll be impeached forever .
Speaker Pelosi knows how to handle Trump .
First , she told him that until he tried to rig the 2020 election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then she followed it up by turning his Twitter insults around , and calling Trump crazy .
Pelosi ’ s right .
Trump ’ s Twitter account is nothing more than the projections of America ’ s only emotional tween trapped in the body of a senior citizen .
Trump is projecting , and his mental state has deteriorated to such a point that the Speaker of the House is calling his crazy on national TV .
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
When asked about Trump’s tweets, Pelosi said that they are projections of his own behavior, so when he calls her crazy, he is crazy.
Transcript via ABC’s This Week:
PELOSI: He’s not worth it, but when he crossed that line on Ukraine he violated the constitution in such a way that could not be ignored.
So again, I don’t like to spend too much time on his crazy tweets, because everything he says is a projection. When he calls someone crazy he knows that he is. Everything he says you can just translate it back to who he is.
But again, it’s Sunday morning. Let’s be optimistic about the future, a future that will not have Donald Trump in the White House one way or another. Ten months from now we will have an election if we don’t have him removed sooner. But, again, he’ll be impeached forever.
Video of the full Pelosi interview:
Speaker Pelosi knows how to handle Trump. First, she told him that until he tried to rig the 2020 election, he was not worth impeaching, and then she followed it up by turning his Twitter insults around, and calling Trump crazy.
Pelosi’s right. Trump’s Twitter account is nothing more than the projections of America’s only emotional tween trapped in the body of a senior citizen.
Trump is projecting, and his mental state has deteriorated to such a point that the Speaker of the House is calling his crazy on national TV.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-12--An On Fire Adam Schiff Tears Apart Trump’s Iran Lies

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) took apart Trump ’ s Iran lies and pointed out where he is fudging or exaggerating evidence .
REP. SCHIFF : I don ’ t quibble with it .
I think it ’ s just plain wrong .
There was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets .
MARGARET BRENNAN : What about U.S. embassy , Baghdad ?
MARGARET BRENNAN : He said that was specifically referenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t recall , frankly , in that briefing there being a specific discussion about bombing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad .
The brief was much more along the lines , frankly , of something that Secretary Pompeo admitted the other day when he said that we don ’ t know precisely where and we don ’ t know precisely when .
That was much more the nature of the briefing that we got .
In the view of the briefers , there was plotting .
There was a- an effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have specificity .
And so when you hear the president out there on FOX , he is fudging the intelligence and when you hear the Secretary say , well , that wasn ’ t what the intelligence said , but that ’ s my personal belief , he is fudging .
When Secretary Pompeo was on your show last week and made the claim that the intelligence analysis was that taking Soleimani out would improve our security and not- and leaving them in would make us less safe , that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intelligence conclusion .
That is Pompeo ’ s personal opinion .
Intelligence– MARGARET BRENNAN : Is that a polite way of saying they ’ re lying ?
REP. SCHIFF : Well , you know , you could certainly put it that way .
But frankly , I think what they are doing is they are overstating and exaggerating what the intelligence shows .
And when you ’ re talking about justifying acts that might bring us into warfare with Iran , that ’ s a dangerous thing to do .
The administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Esper admitted as much .
The cover story for the Soleimani strike has fallen apart .
Trump lies about everything , so it should not surprise the American people that he lied about the basis for the action against Iran .
The problem is bigger than Trump ’ s lies .
It ’ s that he has now surrounded himself with an entire administration that is willing to believe his lies and turn his falsehoods into policy .
Personal opinions are valued more than intelligence , and that sets up a perilous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) took apart Trump’s Iran lies and pointed out where he is fudging or exaggerating evidence.
Transcript via CBS’s Face The Nation:
REP. SCHIFF: I don’t quibble with it. I think it’s just plain wrong. There was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What about U.S. embassy, Baghdad?
REP. SCHIFF: It- it—
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said that was specifically referenced.
REP. SCHIFF: –Well, I don’t recall, frankly, in that briefing there being a specific discussion about bombing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The brief was much more along the lines, frankly, of something that Secretary Pompeo admitted the other day when he said that we don’t know precisely where and we don’t know precisely when. That was much more the nature of the briefing that we got. In the view of the briefers, there was plotting. There was a- an effort to escalate being planned, but they didn’t have specificity. And so when you hear the president out there on FOX, he is fudging the intelligence and when you hear the Secretary say, well, that wasn’t what the intelligence said, but that’s my personal belief, he is fudging. When Secretary Pompeo was on your show last week and made the claim that the intelligence analysis was that taking Soleimani out would improve our security and not- and leaving them in would make us less safe, that is also fudging. That’s not an intelligence conclusion. That is Pompeo’s personal opinion. Intelligence–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that a polite way of saying they’re lying?
REP. SCHIFF: Well, you know, you could certainly put it that way. But frankly, I think what they are doing is they are overstating and exaggerating what the intelligence shows. And when you’re talking about justifying acts that might bring us into warfare with Iran, that’s a dangerous thing to do.
Video:
The administration is lying. Sec. of Defense Mark Esper admitted as much. The cover story for the Soleimani strike has fallen apart. Trump lies about everything, so it should not surprise the American people that he lied about the basis for the action against Iran.
The problem is bigger than Trump’s lies. It’s that he has now surrounded himself with an entire administration that is willing to believe his lies and turn his falsehoods into policy.
Personal opinions are valued more than intelligence, and that sets up a perilous situation for US national security.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-12--Trump’s Story About Iran Threatening US Embassies Is Completely Falling Apart

Trump ’ s story about Iran threatening four US embassies has fallen apart as his own defense secretary said that he never saw the evidence .
The cover story unraveled during Defense Secretary Mark Esper ’ s Face The Nation interview : MARGARET BRENNAN : But , broadly , can you clarify though , was the specific threat that the president shared with Fox News about four U.S. embassies being under threat , also shared with Congress ?
Why was there a difference ?
SEC .
ESPER : Well , what the president said was he believed that it probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassies .
I shared that view .
I know other members of national security team shared that view .
That ’ s why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region .
MARGARET BRENNAN : Probably and could have been .
That is- that sounds more like an assessment than a specific , tangible threat with a- a decisive piece of intelligence .
SEC .
ESPER : Well , the president didn ’ t say there was a tangible- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece of evidence .
What he said is he probably- he believed , could have been— MARGARET BRENNAN : Are you saying there wasn ’ t one ?
SEC .
ESPER : I didn ’ t see one with regard to four embassies .
What I ’ m saying is I share the president ’ s view that probably- my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies .
The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country .
Mark Esper didn ’ t see the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In less than 3 days , the story has gone from Trump saying that Iran was going to attack four US embassies to his Secretary of Defense saying that they believed that the embassies could be attacked , to the same Sec .
of Defense admitting that he never saw any evidence that Iran was going to attack the embassies .
The cover story for Trump ’ s Iran attack is dead , and now the House must investigate why the administration lied about the threat justify killing Soleimani and potentially escalating war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Trump’s story about Iran threatening four US embassies has fallen apart as his own defense secretary said that he never saw the evidence.
The cover story unraveled during Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s Face The Nation interview:
MARGARET BRENNAN: But, broadly, can you clarify though, was the specific threat that the president shared with Fox News about four U.S. embassies being under threat, also shared with Congress? Why was there a difference?
SEC. ESPER: Well, what the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view. I know other members of national security team shared that view. That’s why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Probably and could have been. That is- that sounds more like an assessment than a specific, tangible threat with a- a decisive piece of intelligence.
SEC. ESPER: Well, the president didn’t say there was a tangible- he didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably- he believed, could have been—
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you saying there wasn’t one?
SEC. ESPER: I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies. What I’m saying is I share the president’s view that probably- my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country.
Video:
Mark Esper didn’t see the evidence because it doesn’t exist. In less than 3 days, the story has gone from Trump saying that Iran was going to attack four US embassies to his Secretary of Defense saying that they believed that the embassies could be attacked, to the same Sec. of Defense admitting that he never saw any evidence that Iran was going to attack the embassies.
The cover story for Trump’s Iran attack is dead, and now the House must investigate why the administration lied about the threat justify killing Soleimani and potentially escalating war in the Middle East.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-12--Pelosi Calls Mitch McConnell Trump’s Russia Accomplice

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday that the US isn ’ t doing enough to protect elections and wondered aloud about Mitch McConnell being Trump ’ s Russia accomplice .
STEPHANOPOULOS : As senior U.S. officials are warning that Russia ’ s election interference in 2020 could be more brazen than in 2016 or the 2018 midterm election .
How worried are you about Russian interference in 2020 ?
Are we doing all we can to prevent it ?
PELOSI : No .
And the president of the United States is in complete denial about Russia ’ s role .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this president , all roads lead to Putin .
He has — he said he ’ s not going to accept the assessment of our own intelligence agents , that they are — that they were very much involved in 2016 election .
That 24/7 now they are still engaged .
He ’ s trying to blame it on Ukraine and this silliness that has been debunked again and again , but he and his folks still keep advancing it .
Everything that he has done , whether it ’ s in Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been in Ukraine in terms of withholding assistance as they try to fight the Russians , his denial about their role in our election then and now , all roads lead to Putin .
And sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell , too , what ’ s he — why is he an accomplice to all of that .
He has resisted the sources — There is little doubt that Mitch McConnell is working to undermine US elections .
McConnell is opposed to overturning Citizens United and wanted no campaign finance laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to protect American elections from Russian attacks .
McConnell also got a $ 200 million payoff from a Russian oligarch after he blocked an effort to reimpose sanctions .
Mitch McConnell has earned his Moscow Mitch nickname and Speaker Pelosi is calling him out for selling out America to Putin .
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday that the US isn’t doing enough to protect elections and wondered aloud about Mitch McConnell being Trump’s Russia accomplice.
Transcript via ABC’s This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: As senior U.S. officials are warning that Russia’s election interference in 2020 could be more brazen than in 2016 or the 2018 midterm election.
How worried are you about Russian interference in 2020? Are we doing all we can to prevent it?
PELOSI: No. And the president of the United States is in complete denial about Russia’s role. As I have said in terms of this president, all roads lead to Putin. He has — he said he’s not going to accept the assessment of our own intelligence agents, that they are — that they were very much involved in 2016 election. That 24/7 now they are still engaged. He’s trying to blame it on Ukraine and this silliness that has been debunked again and again, but he and his folks still keep advancing it.
Everything that he has done, whether it’s in Syria vis-a-vis the Turks, whether it’s been in Ukraine in terms of withholding assistance as they try to fight the Russians, his denial about their role in our election then and now, all roads lead to Putin.
And sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell, too, what’s he — why is he an accomplice to all of that. He has resisted the sources —
Video:
Asked if the U.S. is doing enough to stop 2020 election interference, Pelosi responds: "No, and the president is in complete denial about Russia's role," Pelosi says. "Sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell, too. Why is he an accomplice to all of that?" pic.twitter.com/ioDKLnMEMS — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 12, 2020
There is little doubt that Mitch McConnell is working to undermine US elections. McConnell is opposed to overturning Citizens United and wanted no campaign finance laws. McConnell has also consistently blocked Senate efforts to protect American elections from Russian attacks. McConnell also got a $200 million payoff from a Russian oligarch after he blocked an effort to reimpose sanctions.
Mitch McConnell has earned his Moscow Mitch nickname and Speaker Pelosi is calling him out for selling out America to Putin.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook


politicususa--2020-01-12--Defense Secretary Admits Trump Made Up Iran Embassies Threat

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that Iran could have attacked US embassies , which is completely different Trump ’ s made-up threat against embassies .
Esper said on CNN ’ s State of the Union , “ What the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well .
He said he believed that they probably , that they could have been targeting the embassies in the region .
I believe that as well as did other national security team members that is why I deployed thousands of additional paratroopers to the region to reinforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other locations throughout the region.
” When Jake Tapper asked if there was intelligence that Iran was going to attack four US embassies , Esper answered , “ I am not going to discuss intelligence here on the show.
” Sec .
Esper ’ s admitting that the administration launched a military strike against Iran based on what the Iranians could do , not intelligence suggesting what they will do .
There is no evidence that Iran was going to attack four US embassies .
Trump and his national security team made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do without congressional authorization .
Trump is a fact-free president who could bumble the nation into a new Middle East war because of his feelings .
One hundred seventy-six innocent people are already dead due to Trump ’ s feelings , and if given a second term the body count could be exponentially higher .
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group .

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Print
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that Iran could have attacked US embassies, which is completely different Trump’s made-up threat against embassies.
Esper said on CNN’s State of the Union, “What the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well. He said he believed that they probably, that they could have been targeting the embassies in the region. I believe that as well as did other national security team members that is why I deployed thousands of additional paratroopers to the region to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and to reinforce other locations throughout the region.”
When Jake Tapper asked if there was intelligence that Iran was going to attack four US embassies, Esper answered, “I am not going to discuss intelligence here on the show.”
Video:
On CNN, Mark Esper makes it absolutely clear that the Trump administration is making it up as they go when they claim Soleimani posed an imminent threat to 4 different US embassies pic.twitter.com/Cm16XkOrlo — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 12, 2020
Sec. Esper’s admitting that the administration launched a military strike against Iran based on what the Iranians could do, not intelligence suggesting what they will do.
Belief was substituted for facts.
There is no evidence that Iran was going to attack four US embassies. Trump and his national security team made it up to justify what they wanted to do without congressional authorization.
Trump is a fact-free president who could bumble the nation into a new Middle East war because of his feelings. One hundred seventy-six innocent people are already dead due to Trump’s feelings, and if given a second term the body count could be exponentially higher.
For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.
Follow Jason Easley on Facebook