rawstory--2020-01-12--‘Mark Esper is not a serious person’: Defense secretary pounded for ‘astoundingly embarrassing’ Sund

‘Mark Esper is not a serious person’: Defense secretary pounded for ‘astoundingly embarrassing’ Sunday show interviews

Defense Secretary Mark Esper made the morning show rounds on Sunday , ostensibly to provide cover for the Trump administration ’ s claim that Iranian General .
Qassem Soleimani posed an “ imminent threat ” to United States personnel prior to his assassination .
In doing so , however , Esper highlighted the administration ’ s evolving justifications for launching the strike that killed Soleimani , and contradicted President Donald Trump ’ s unsubstantiated claim the Iranian commander was planning an attack on “ four embassies ” in the region .
Speaking with CNN ’ s Jake Tapper , Esper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific intelligence to four different embassies.
” “ What the president said was he believed it probably could have been , ” Espert told Tapper .
“ He didn ’ t cite intelligence.
” In fact , in an interview with Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham on Friday , Trump purported to be divulging intelligence to the contrary .
“ I can reveal that I believe it probably would ’ ve been four embassies , ” the president told Ingraham .
Asked about the president ’ s claim in a separate interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esper admitted he “ didn ’ t see ” evidence showing a plan to attack 4 U.S. embassies .
The whiplash wasn ’ t lost on viewers , who took to Twitter to express disbelief over Esper ’ s performance — and questioned why anyone would believe the defense secretary in light of the Trump administration ’ s shifting cover for the attack .

"I know you were animated and motivated by this desire to warn of the natural endgame for Trump and his supporters," said anchor Nicolle Wallace. "And that has been something you've been warning about the loudest. Maybe the longest ... talk about what you see in this moment."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"This book, 'Blowback,' I didn't want to write it," said Taylor. "As I've said to you many times, I don't want to be talking about politics anymore. We're stuck in this environment where political violence is one of the biggest threats to our country. The reason I talked extensively about it is because we now have a political party that is mainstreaming that violence as an acceptable tactic. The studies show the GOP base is embracing it. This was very foreseeable."
"There's someone I want to quote," said Taylor. "One of Donald Trump's Republican opponents for the GOP nomination very prophetically spelled this out. He warned that Trump had a history of inciting violence, that his henchmen did, if he took the White House, he would be like Michael Corleone from 'The Godfather' and this would be a dangerous environment. He would run that administration like a Mafia and he would act like a mobster. That person who made that warning was Ted Cruz. The same representative who defended Donald Trump against the charges in Georgia."
That, Taylor continued, signifies "how powerful this radicalization has been that the same people who were warning this guy would incite mass violence has now been brainwashed to go out and defend him for some of the past acts that led to violence."
"I think it is a big worry," added Taylor. "Donald Trump continues to blow that dog whistle. He did it to me when I came out against him. It is why many times I've joined your show from different places. One of the apartments I used to join your show, we had to leave there because of the menacing packages that were arriving with regularity. We couldn't stay there anymore. It is one of many, many examples around the country and now we're seeing with it the jurors in this case. It is wrong, and law enforcement should pay further attention to whether there are further violations of the law."
Watch the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-12--Trump buried in scorn for self-pitying tweet that he now has ‘the stigma of Impeachment attached’ to

Trump buried in scorn for self-pitying tweet that he now has ‘the stigma of Impeachment attached’ to his name

As part of his Twitter barrage on Sunday , Donald Trump whined about the unfairness of having the “ stigma @ @ @ @ @ to his name and said the whole proceeding is an affront to millions of voters @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Nancy ( D-CA ) and Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , the president @ @ @ @ @ damage he feels has been done to his reputation .
“ Why should I have @ @ @ @ @ to my name when I did NOTHING wrong ?
Read the Transcripts !
A totally @ @ @ @ @ before .
House Republicans voted 195-0 , with three Dems voting with the Republicans .
@ @ @ @ @ millions of voters !
” he tweeted .
Twitter followers were less than sympathetic .
@ @ @

"It won't work," said Litman. "It shouldn't work for Trump who was going to do this. We've had different holdings from different courts saying, nuh-uh, the stuff you're doing doesn't even reach the outer perimeter which is the test. But look what Meadows is doing in there. Do you characterize them in the same way as Trump? As you know, basically doing a plot to steal the election? Or he's the chief of staff. Do you characterize them as following the orders of the president?"
Meadows, Litman continued, is "a very interesting figure in this indictment generally. On the one hand, he shows up in Jack Smith's indictment. So you thought the attorney, an excellent lawyer, a former attorney general, had done a great deal with him. But it couldn't be because he's now subject to criminal indictment in Georgia. He is the man of mystery. As to his motion for removal, it is less, I would say, loser out of the box than for Trump himself. The question is, how do you characterize the act's doing? Is he acting as chief of staff to a madman? Is that what do you when you're a chief of staff to a madman?"
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"Let me press you on this," said Wallace, who herself was a staffer in the George W. Bush administration. "Isn't there a — in a sense, breaking point when the president is asking you to do something illegal? Rudy Giuliani thought seizing voting machines was illegal. Do you just cover it under, the boss told me to do it? I've worked in the White House. I've never heard that before."
"But again, follow what Meadows is doing specifically," said Litman. "He's playing all sides. It will matter how you characterize his conduct. Yes, he can't be following illegal orders and still say i'm acting under color of my office. Look at the way the attorney is trying to frame it. I'm not saying it is a dead-bang winner. I'm trying to underscore the distinction between Meadows, who is at least more doing what a chief of staff does, than Trump, who is obviously out of the outer perimeter of how presidents act. It will come down to how you characterize. I agree. There are things far afield, come on, Meadows. You're basically holding up a bank. But other things where he's acting as chief of staff. It is less of an easy case for him than it is for Trump."
Watch the video below or at the link here.


rawstory--2020-01-12--Rick Santorum: Trump’s anti-Obama conspiracy theories are ‘a lot more important’ than impeachment

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted on Sunday that President Donald Trump ’ s conspiracy theory about FISA abuses in the Obama administration will have a large impact on the election than impeachment .
“ I think in the end , it ’ s a loser for the Democrats , ” Santorum insisted on CNN ’ s State of the Union program .
“ The way that Nancy Pelosi has handled this has been — showed that it ’ s overtly political.
” “ The point that was just made by [ Mia Love ] is accurate , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is all about hurting Donald Trump before the election .
There was no chance that Donald Trump was going to be removed from president .
It ’ s clear that it ’ s a purely political operation.
” “ And I think people will view it in that lens , ” Santorum said .
“ And I think by the time that the November election comes around , I think the issues with the FBI and what happened with FISA and what happened with the original [ Russia ] investigation are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the American public than impeachment.
” Watch the video below from CNN .

Dissolving carbon dioxide
Carbonation involves dissolving the colorless and odorless carbon dioxide – CO₂ – gas into a liquid. When carbon dioxide is added to a sealed bottle or can containing water, the pressure in the bottle or can increases, and the carbon dioxide dissolves into the liquid.
The CO₂ above the liquid and the CO₂ dissolved in the liquid reach chemical equilibrium. Chemical equilibrium essentially means the rate that CO₂ dissolves into the liquid is equal to the rate that CO₂ is released from the liquid. It’s based on the amounts of CO₂ both in the air and in the liquid.
Some of the dissolved CO₂ reacts with the water to form carbonic acid, which has a chemical formula of H₂CO₃. So once some of the dissolved CO₂ converts to H₂CO₃, more CO₂ from the air above can dissolve into the liquid and reestablish chemical equilibrium.
Carbonation happens when CO₂ is forced into a can or bottle, where it dissolves into the liquid.
When you open a bottle or can, the pressure above the carbonated liquid drops to match the pressure outside of the bottle or can. The pressure release results in a hissing sound, and you see bubbles rising in the liquid as the H₂CO₃ converts back to CO₂ and that gas escapes to the surface. The carbonic acid in the beverage is what makes it taste a little sour.
A colder drink is a bubblier one
The bubbles in carbonated beverages are filled with CO₂ gas moving from an area of high CO₂ concentration to an area of low CO₂ concentration. Jonathan Knowles/DigitalVision via Getty Images
Another important factor influencing carbonation is temperature. Most gases, including carbon dioxide, do not dissolve well in liquids as the temperature of the liquid rises. That’s why carbonated drinks go flat if you leave them out at room temperature.
Conversely, if you place your favorite carbonated beverage in the refrigerator and allow it to get cold, more dissolved carbon dioxide will stay in the beverage while it’s still sealed. When you open the chilled bottle or can, the liquid is more bubbly because there was more dissolved carbon dioxide in the cold beverage.
The temperature of the liquid affects how the CO₂ molecules dissolved in the beverage behave once the beverage is opened.
Surface tension and fizziness
One final important factor for carbonation is the surface tension of the liquid. A liquid’s surface tension is determined by how strongly the liquid’s molecules interact with each other. For most beverages, those molecules are water molecules, but diet soft drinks have artificial sweeteners dissolved in them. These sweeteners can weaken the interactions between the water molecules, creating a lower surface tension. A lower surface tension means the carbon dioxide bubbles form faster and last longer.
This is why it takes slightly longer to be served a Diet Coke on ice, a problem you might notice on a plane. The lower surface tension from the artificial sweetener means there’s more fizz, and for longer, compared with other soft drinks. The flight attendants then have to wait for the bubbles in the cup to break before they can fill the cup with more Diet Coke.
CO₂ bubbles form on the surface of the candy, which falls to the bottom of the bottle and pushes the fizzing liquid out the top. The lower surface tension of diet soda means more bubbles that last longer.
Surface tension is also why Diet Coke works so well in the famous Mentos experiment, during which you drop Mentos candies into 2-liter Diet Coke bottles. The candy helps to weaken the interactions between the water molecules and the CO₂ molecules, lowering the surface tension and allowing for an easier release of CO₂ molecules. A bubbling “geyser” of Diet Coke rises fast above the 2-liter bottle as the CO₂ molecules quickly form on the candy’s surfaces and force the Diet Coke out of the bottle.
Getting the bubbles into a beverage
In an effort to make water similar to that from mineral springs, the carbonation process was invented by Joseph Priestley in England in the 1760s and commercialized by Jacob Schweppe – recognize the name? – in Switzerland in the 1780s. Priestley reacted chalk with sulfuric acid, producing CO₂, and he hung a water-filled container over the reaction to infuse the water with CO₂.
Today, most commercial beers, soft drinks, seltzers and sparkling waters are created by “forced” carbonation. This is when manufacturers directly inject carbon dioxide into the beverage under high carbon dioxide pressures.
A second common way to introduce carbon dioxide into a liquid is by fermentation. Champagne manufacturers and some small home beer brewers follow this method by sealing a sugar source and live yeast into their bottles. The yeast produce alcohol and carbon dioxide, and this carbon dioxide increases the pressure in the bottle, resulting in carbonated champagne and beer. But this process is not as controlled and can result in exploding bottles.
Larger brewers often capture CO₂ produced during a fermentation process and pump that gas into the tanks that contain beer to carbonate the beer. This is normally a controlled process that allows for known amounts of carbon dioxide to be introduced into the beverages for outstanding consistency.
Carbonation is a marriage between physics and chemistry – one that transforms ordinary liquids into effervescent treats. The next time you drink a carbonated beverage, take a moment to appreciate the science behind those dancing bubbles.
Michael W. Crowder, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University


rawstory--2020-01-12--Reconciling Dr. King’s 1968 dream and our 2020 Trump nightmare

This upcoming Martin Luther King Jr. Day promises to be an especially sad one .
As evinced by the deteriorating social circumstances both at home and around the world , we have done a poor job living up to his legacy .
This article first appeared in Salon .
And while we still have Dr. King ’ s prophetic voice as a beacon , it feels like we somehow went into reverse , deep into a dystopian wilderness since he died .
By my calculation , we are about as far from the clearing of his “ promised land ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my 64 years .
“ When machines and computers , profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people , the giant triplets of racism , materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered , ” wrote Dr , King in his last book , “ Where Do We Go From Here : Chaos or Community ?
” He continued : “ A civilization can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy.
” As the billionaires train the firehoses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary process to “ save ” capitalism as we know it , progressives should keep in mind that Dr. King was a principled critic of capitalism .
As Vincent Harding recounts in his introduction to Dr. King ’ s seminal book , the civil rights leader famously said “ something is wrong with capitalism … there must be a better distribution of wealth , and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism… ” He has been dead and buried for over half a century , and yet King prophesied where we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the presidency a man who used racial animus as a weapon to divide a nation so he could rule it — and now has admitted to using the power of the military he now commands to kill so he can continue to stay in power .
That corruption of our democracy by this bloodthirsty narcissist is unfathomable — and yet the corporate news media can ’ t press too hard on that fact for fear of losing access to the tyrant who drives our news cycle .
Trump now has the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckless act of self-preservation .
Instead , the media is consigned to cover him with the trappings of his office , crediting him with seeking an “ off-ramp ” because he did not carpet bomb Iran .
And as with their reporting on the Trump miracle economy , which of course only benefits the one percent and corporations , this mainstreaming of his criminality helps build the scaffolding for his re-election .
During the Obama years , the corporate news media used the MLK inflection point as a kind of collective pat on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It reassured us as a nation that we were pretty far along on the path of being a more tolerant , righteous and just nation .
There was a poetic symmetry in 2008 when President Obama took the oath of office for the first time on the steps of the nation ’ s Capitol , directly opposite the Lincoln Memorial , where 40 years earlier Dr. King had given us our marching orders .
At that point the United States was years deep into a global war on terrorism ginned up by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a calculated deception that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructions and that it had played a role in planning the 9/11 attacks .
Over the arc of President Obama ’ s eight years , he essentially carried over the two most significant Bush era policies when it came to the global war on terrorism and the bailing out of Wall Street at the expense of everybody else in response to the Great Recession .
Thus , after sixteen years of an ill-conceived continuum , the stage was set for the rise of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end the further-notice wars and championed the cause of working-class Americans abused by the elites who , in Trump ’ s view , preferred foreigners to red-blooded Americans .
The carrying cost of the further-notice global war had been obscured from the American people in two important respects .
With the post-Vietnam War abandonment of the draft and shift to an all-volunteer military , the American people became increasingly disconnected from the stresses and strains on those that serve and their families .
And the hundreds of billions expended for what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domination by the neo-cons were deliberately kept “ off-budget ” by being categorized as Overseas Contingency Operations , on an emergency basis without an expiration date , putting them beyond the discipline of sequestration .
Hiding the money was only part of the post-9/11 hijacking of our republic .
By 1968 , the Nixon administration was beginning to learn an important lesson from the mass protest against the war in Vietnam .
That war had become unpopular in no small part because it required a draft that drew on 2.2 million conscripts out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
The year before an influential paper written by Milton Friedman , the Nobel prize winner who turned free markets into a religion , advocated for an all- volunteer Army .
Friedman ’ s reasoning was foundational to President Nixon ’ s creation of the Gates Commission , which he sat on along with Alan Greenspan , who was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 until 2006 .
The report noted that advocates for retaining the draft worried that not requiring all Americans to have some skin in the waging of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Gates Commission countered that an all-voluntary force would “ actually increase democratic participation in decisions concerning the use of military force ” and denied it would result in unchecked “ military aggressiveness.
” It is important to remember , as Prof. Andrew Bacevich , an historian and retired career soldier noted recently “ the collapse of the tradition of the citizen soldier…is a tradition that harkens back to the very beginning of the republic and continued until Vietnam…The G.I.s who went ashore in Omaha Beach were not professionals .
They were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on : “ That system continued with Korea .
That system continued with Vietnam too , and because of the folly of Vietnam and the anger of the American people , stimulated by that folly , the American people abandoned that tradition.
” In its place , we have , he believes “ become comfortable with having a military largely detached from the people drawn from that very militant part of our society and sent out to wage wars that never end ” and no longer tasked with discrete and tangible goals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have the greatest army on the earth , the U.S. military rarely wins decisively in conflicts .
Likewise , they rarely achieve the amorphic goals they are assigned — goals like “ spreading democracy , ” “ eliminating terrorism , ” or “ bringing order.
” America ’ s status as a perpetual war-fighting machine came after the end of the so called Cold War , when policy experts held forums about what our country could have the opportunity to accomplish with the “ peace dividend ” that would be realized by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The leveling of the World Trade Center , and the post– “ protect the endangered homeland ” consensus commandeered not just our wallets but our imagination .
In the America of 2020 , the nation has never been more economically out of whack , with income inequality accelerating .
Since the Great Recession , when Wall Street greed set into motion the evaporation of $ 20 trillion of American household wealth , the collapse was most keenly felt in African American households .
And what is not widely appreciated is that the proliferation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner of household , medical and student debt that have exploded since Dr. King ’ s death — are helping to fuel the wealth concentration that King warned us about .
As the percentage of union enrollment declined , so did American wages — and household debt exploded in place of real income growth .
Meanwhile , our government itself was also being hollowed out by a growing debt addiction .
In just three years , the interest payments on our federal government debt will be bigger than our annual military budget which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion .
Like a tape worm , debt service is devouring the nation from within .
It is only a boon to those who speculate in it , and to Pentagon contractors who profit off the bulging military budgets .
It offers a place for great wealth to protect itself by investing in the instruments that carry it , as it does in similar bond offerings floated at the municipal , county and state levels of government .
This is the great pyramid scheme whereby every public improvement , airport , bridge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tithe to investors who demand a piece of the action .
But the ever-expanding dominion of debt has not just helped turn our government into a protection racket for the one percent .
It has subjugated an entire generation of young people that are shackled by $ 1.7 trillion in student debt many of them have no hope of repaying .
And there is a cynical convergence of our debt machine and the recruiting for the “ volunteers ” to fight our further notice wars .
As Vice reported , the Army met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure by playing on the devastation wrought by the American student debt crisis .
“ One of the national crises right now is student loans , so $ 31,000 is about the average , ” Army Recruiting Command Major Gen. Frank Muth told Vice reporters .
“ You can get out [ of the Army ] after four years , 100 percent paid for state college anywhere in the United States.
” In a society in which many believe that a lack of a college degree means consigning oneself to economic oblivion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Thomas Gokey , an activist with the Debt Collective , told Vice : “ Debt is a form of social control .
You can force people to do all kinds of things if you put them in debt first , including waging unjust wars , killing and hurting other people , and risking [ their ] own life and limbs.
” But debt as “ social control ” is not merely a tool used to capture the young .
It increasingly subjugates the entire nation , particularly with the latest $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one percent and corporations .
These were enacted despite the spike in defense spending , and even as we continue to ignore the existential threat of climate change .
The same folks that profit from the existing system are now making the case that because of our massive federal debt run up to serve the military and corporations , we will have no choice but to “ reform ” social security , disability , food stamps , Medicare and Medicaid .
( Read : cut and destroy them . )
For our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century rulers .
Without radical change , all of our choices at home and as a nation will be increasingly driven by servicing these indentures from which there will be no redemption .

This upcoming Martin Luther King Jr. Day promises to be an especially sad one. As evinced by the deteriorating social circumstances both at home and around the world, we have done a poor job living up to his legacy.
This article first appeared in Salon.
And while we still have Dr. King’s prophetic voice as a beacon, it feels like we somehow went into reverse, deep into a dystopian wilderness since he died. By my calculation, we are about as far from the clearing of his “promised land” as we have been at any point in my 64 years.
“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered,” wrote Dr, King in his last book, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” He continued: “A civilization can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy.”
As the billionaires train the firehoses of their vast wealth on the Democratic presidential primary process to "save" capitalism as we know it, progressives should keep in mind that Dr. King was a principled critic of capitalism.
As Vincent Harding recounts in his introduction to Dr. King’s seminal book, the civil rights leader famously said “something is wrong with capitalism … there must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism…”
He has been dead and buried for over half a century, and yet King prophesied where we are now in 2020.
We have elevated to the presidency a man who used racial animus as a weapon to divide a nation so he could rule it — and now has admitted to using the power of the military he now commands to kill so he can continue to stay in power.
That corruption of our democracy by this bloodthirsty narcissist is unfathomable — and yet the corporate news media can’t press too hard on that fact for fear of losing access to the tyrant who drives our news cycle. Trump now has the entire planet on edge waiting for his next reckless act of self-preservation.
Instead, the media is consigned to cover him with the trappings of his office, crediting him with seeking an “off-ramp” because he did not carpet bomb Iran. And as with their reporting on the Trump miracle economy, which of course only benefits the one percent and corporations, this mainstreaming of his criminality helps build the scaffolding for his re-election.
During the Obama years, the corporate news media used the MLK inflection point as a kind of collective pat on the back for the American psyche. It reassured us as a nation that we were pretty far along on the path of being a more tolerant, righteous and just nation.
There was a poetic symmetry in 2008 when President Obama took the oath of office for the first time on the steps of the nation’s Capitol, directly opposite the Lincoln Memorial, where 40 years earlier Dr. King had given us our marching orders.
At that point the United States was years deep into a global war on terrorism ginned up by the George W. Bush administration and based on a calculated deception that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructions and that it had played a role in planning the 9/11 attacks.
Over the arc of President Obama’s eight years, he essentially carried over the two most significant Bush era policies when it came to the global war on terrorism and the bailing out of Wall Street at the expense of everybody else in response to the Great Recession.
Thus, after sixteen years of an ill-conceived continuum, the stage was set for the rise of “populist” Trump. Then-candidate Trump promised to end the further-notice wars and championed the cause of working-class Americans abused by the elites who, in Trump’s view, preferred foreigners to red-blooded Americans.
The carrying cost of the further-notice global war had been obscured from the American people in two important respects. With the post-Vietnam War abandonment of the draft and shift to an all-volunteer military, the American people became increasingly disconnected from the stresses and strains on those that serve and their families.
And the hundreds of billions expended for what was a post-Cold War play for US global domination by the neo-cons were deliberately kept “off-budget” by being categorized as Overseas Contingency Operations, on an emergency basis without an expiration date, putting them beyond the discipline of sequestration.
Hiding the money was only part of the post-9/11 hijacking of our republic.
By 1968, the Nixon administration was beginning to learn an important lesson from the mass protest against the war in Vietnam. That war had become unpopular in no small part because it required a draft that drew on 2.2 million conscripts out of a potential pool of 27 million Americans.
The year before an influential paper written by Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winner who turned free markets into a religion, advocated for an all- volunteer Army. Friedman’s reasoning was foundational to President Nixon’s creation of the Gates Commission, which he sat on along with Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 until 2006.
The report noted that advocates for retaining the draft worried that not requiring all Americans to have some skin in the waging of war would “encourage military adventurism.” The Gates Commission countered that an all-voluntary force would “actually increase democratic participation in decisions concerning the use of military force” and denied it would result in unchecked “military aggressiveness.”
It is important to remember, as Prof. Andrew Bacevich, an historian and retired career soldier noted recently “the collapse of the tradition of the citizen soldier…is a tradition that harkens back to the very beginning of the republic and continued until Vietnam…The G.I.s who went ashore in Omaha Beach were not professionals. They were in it for the duration.”
He goes on: “That system continued with Korea. That system continued with Vietnam too, and because of the folly of Vietnam and the anger of the American people, stimulated by that folly, the American people abandoned that tradition.”
In its place, we have, he believes “become comfortable with having a military largely detached from the people drawn from that very militant part of our society and sent out to wage wars that never end” and no longer tasked with discrete and tangible goals.
Bacevich concludes, that while Americans believe we have the greatest army on the earth, the U.S. military rarely wins decisively in conflicts. Likewise, they rarely achieve the amorphic goals they are assigned — goals like “spreading democracy,” “eliminating terrorism,” or “bringing order.”
America’s status as a perpetual war-fighting machine came after the end of the so called Cold War, when policy experts held forums about what our country could have the opportunity to accomplish with the “peace dividend” that would be realized by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The leveling of the World Trade Center, and the post–“protect the endangered homeland” consensus commandeered not just our wallets but our imagination.
In the America of 2020, the nation has never been more economically out of whack, with income inequality accelerating. Since the Great Recession, when Wall Street greed set into motion the evaporation of $20 trillion of American household wealth, the collapse was most keenly felt in African American households.
And what is not widely appreciated is that the proliferation of federal debt — and all other manner of household, medical and student debt that have exploded since Dr. King’s death — are helping to fuel the wealth concentration that King warned us about.
As the percentage of union enrollment declined, so did American wages — and household debt exploded in place of real income growth. Meanwhile, our government itself was also being hollowed out by a growing debt addiction.
In just three years, the interest payments on our federal government debt will be bigger than our annual military budget which this year was close to $740 billion. Like a tape worm, debt service is devouring the nation from within. It is only a boon to those who speculate in it, and to Pentagon contractors who profit off the bulging military budgets.
It offers a place for great wealth to protect itself by investing in the instruments that carry it, as it does in similar bond offerings floated at the municipal, county and state levels of government. This is the great pyramid scheme whereby every public improvement, airport, bridge, tunnel or mass transit system has to tithe to investors who demand a piece of the action.
But the ever-expanding dominion of debt has not just helped turn our government into a protection racket for the one percent. It has subjugated an entire generation of young people that are shackled by $1.7 trillion in student debt many of them have no hope of repaying.
And there is a cynical convergence of our debt machine and the recruiting for the “volunteers” to fight our further notice wars.
As Vice reported, the Army met its recruiting goal last year in large measure by playing on the devastation wrought by the American student debt crisis.
“One of the national crises right now is student loans, so $31,000 is about the average,” Army Recruiting Command Major Gen. Frank Muth told Vice reporters. “You can get out [of the Army] after four years, 100 percent paid for state college anywhere in the United States."
In a society in which many believe that a lack of a college degree means consigning oneself to economic oblivion, young people are ripe for the picking. As Thomas Gokey, an activist with the Debt Collective, told Vice: “Debt is a form of social control. You can force people to do all kinds of things if you put them in debt first, including waging unjust wars, killing and hurting other people, and risking [their] own life and limbs.”
But debt as “social control” is not merely a tool used to capture the young. It increasingly subjugates the entire nation, particularly with the latest $1.7 trillion Trump GOP tax cuts for the one percent and corporations. These were enacted despite the spike in defense spending, and even as we continue to ignore the existential threat of climate change.
The same folks that profit from the existing system are now making the case that because of our massive federal debt run up to serve the military and corporations, we will have no choice but to “reform” social security, disability, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid. (Read: cut and destroy them.)
For our debt and its holders are our 21st century rulers. Without radical change, all of our choices at home and as a nation will be increasingly driven by servicing these indentures from which there will be no redemption.


rawstory--2020-01-12--Pentagon hammered by ex-Defense Depart. officials for giving ‘chaotic’ Trump option to kill Suleiman

Pentagon hammered by ex-Defense Depart. officials for giving ‘chaotic’ Trump option to kill Suleimani

In a column for the Washington Post , three national security experts who worked in various capacities in the Defense Department criticized Pentagon officials who presented Donald Trump with the extreme option of killing Iranian Military head Qassem Suelimani which in turn has destabilized the Middle East .
According to Alice Friend , a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , Mara Karlin , director of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Loren DeJonge Schulman , the deputy director of studies at the Center for a New American Security , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer up such a drastic response to turmoil in the region .
“ Sending the U.S. military to use force is among the most consequential decisions presidents can make .
Matters may get out of control even with the most careful and deliberate planning .
Skipping such steps shows callous disregard for American lives and interests .
And there is overwhelming evidence in the past week that President Trump instigated an escalation cycle with an American enemy without such consideration , ” they wrote .
“ Instead of holding a tightly managed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump made one of the most dangerous choices of his presidency among a tiny group at Mar-a-Lago .
Such decisive moments are usually preceded by hundreds of people spending countless hours in dingy government offices and conference rooms , building PowerPoint slides and questioning lawyers , ” the op-ed continued .
“ These individuals create the parameters and permutations of what the decision-makers consider .
They identify the possible options , vetting their likely operational , diplomatic , economic and other effects .
That work enables the commander in chief to make wrenching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to authors , “ Bad options , considered with little serious deliberation on an unnecessarily rapid timeline , should never get to the president in the first place.
” “ In our combined 25-plus years in the Pentagon and the White House , use-of-force and even show-of-force decisions created some of the tensest moments between civilian and military leaders , revealing differences in approaches and assumptions , ” they wrote .
“ Inside the Pentagon , by , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for the development of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share with the defense secretary and the president as he sees fit .
In reality , military advice is not just one individual ’ s best ideas but a massive and complex process that engages hundreds of military and civilian experts … Yet it appears that the tight circle at Mar-a-Lago involved in making the decision to kill Soleimani — mainly the secretaries of defense and state — neglected many of these key elements , as the convoluted messaging , lack of preemptive mitigating actions and failure to inform close U.S. allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Calling the administration of Donald Trump “ chaotic , ” they suggested , “ lecturing on procedural deliberation from the outside may seem like wishcasting , at best… The answer is not to make post-hoc justifications or to pray that our system survives .
The muscles of deliberation have to be exercised .
Engaging Congress , which established the authorities that create good military options ; reiterating to the troops and the world that the U.S. military follows the rule of law ; telling senior commanders that they should not be tempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the secretary of defense as the face of the defense apparatus — these are all useful near-term steps.
” “ No matter the president , bad military options should not land on his desk .
We may have been lucky to ratchet down tensions with Iran .
We shouldn ’ t have to rely on luck next time , ” they warned in their conclusion .
You can read the whole piece here .

In a column for the Washington Post, three national security experts who worked in various capacities in the Defense Department criticized Pentagon officials who presented Donald Trump with the extreme option of killing Iranian Military head Qassem Suelimani which in turn has destabilized the Middle East.
According to Alice Friend, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mara Karlin, director of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Loren DeJonge Schulman, the deputy director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, officials should have known better than to offer up such a drastic response to turmoil in the region.
"Sending the U.S. military to use force is among the most consequential decisions presidents can make. Matters may get out of control even with the most careful and deliberate planning. Skipping such steps shows callous disregard for American lives and interests. And there is overwhelming evidence in the past week that President Trump instigated an escalation cycle with an American enemy without such consideration," they wrote.
"Instead of holding a tightly managed, inclusive debate in the Situation Room, Trump made one of the most dangerous choices of his presidency among a tiny group at Mar-a-Lago. Such decisive moments are usually preceded by hundreds of people spending countless hours in dingy government offices and conference rooms, building PowerPoint slides and questioning lawyers," the op-ed continued. "These individuals create the parameters and permutations of what the decision-makers consider. They identify the possible options, vetting their likely operational, diplomatic, economic and other effects. That work enables the commander in chief to make wrenching decisions about his military options wisely."
According to authors, "Bad options, considered with little serious deliberation on an unnecessarily rapid timeline, should never get to the president in the first place."
"In our combined 25-plus years in the Pentagon and the White House, use-of-force and even show-of-force decisions created some of the tensest moments between civilian and military leaders, revealing differences in approaches and assumptions," they wrote. "Inside the Pentagon, by statute , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for the development of military analysis, options and plans to share with the defense secretary and the president as he sees fit. In reality, military advice is not just one individual’s best ideas but a massive and complex process that engages hundreds of military and civilian experts ... Yet it appears that the tight circle at Mar-a-Lago involved in making the decision to kill Soleimani — mainly the secretaries of defense and state — neglected many of these key elements, as the convoluted messaging, lack of preemptive mitigating actions and failure to inform close U.S. allies, let alone members of Congress, demonstrate."
Calling the administration of Donald Trump "chaotic," they suggested, "lecturing on procedural deliberation from the outside may seem like wishcasting, at best... The answer is not to make post-hoc justifications or to pray that our system survives. The muscles of deliberation have to be exercised. Engaging Congress, which established the authorities that create good military options; reiterating to the troops and the world that the U.S. military follows the rule of law; telling senior commanders that they should not be tempted by those seeking private advice; promoting the secretary of defense as the face of the defense apparatus — these are all useful near-term steps."
"No matter the president, bad military options should not land on his desk. We may have been lucky to ratchet down tensions with Iran. We shouldn’t have to rely on luck next time," they warned in their conclusion.
You can read the whole piece here.


rawstory--2020-01-12--GOPer Lee says lawmakers weren’t aware of multiple embassy threats until Trump blurted it at rally:

GOPer Lee says lawmakers weren’t aware of multiple embassy threats until Trump blurted it at rally: ‘That was news to me’

In his interview with CNN ’ s Jake Tapper , Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) said Donald Trump administration never gave any indication that four embassies had been targetted for terrorist attacks prior to the killing of Iranian military official Qassem Suelimani and it was “ news to me ” when the president made that claim during a campaign rally .
Appearing on “ State of the Union , ” Lee was asked about the embassy claim by the CNN host .
“ Did they say anything about four U.S. embassies were going to be targetted by Suelimani and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed on Friday ?
” Tapper asked .
“ I didn ’ t hear anything about that and several colleagues of mine have said the same , ” Lee responded .
“ That was news to me .
It certainly wasn ’ t something that raised in the classified briefing.
” Host Tapper pointed out that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted he had told members about the embassy attacks .
“ I ’ m not sure what he was trying to say there , ” Lee said after watching a clip of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recall being told , ‘ look , there were four embassies , ’ but there was a mention of at least one embassy in that briefing because there had been an attack on one of our embassies in the days leading up to Suelimani ’ s killing .
”

In his interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said Donald Trump administration never gave any indication that four embassies had been targetted for terrorist attacks prior to the killing of Iranian military official Qassem Suelimani and it was "news to me" when the president made that claim during a campaign rally.
Appearing on "State of the Union," Lee was asked about the embassy claim by the CNN host.
"Did they say anything about four U.S. embassies were going to be targetted by Suelimani and his forces as Trump as said he believed on Friday?" Tapper asked.
"I didn't hear anything about that and several colleagues of mine have said the same, " Lee responded. "That was news to me. It certainly wasn't something that raised in the classified briefing."
Host Tapper pointed out that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted he had told members about the embassy attacks.
"I'm not sure what he was trying to say there," Lee said after watching a clip of Pompeo. "I don't recall being told, 'look, there were four embassies,' but there was a mention of at least one embassy in that briefing because there had been an attack on one of our embassies in the days leading up to Suelimani's killing."
Watch below:


rawstory--2020-01-12--Nancy Pelosi drops mic on Trump’s habit of projection: ‘When he calls somebody crazy, he knows that

Nancy Pelosi drops mic on Trump’s habit of projection: ‘When he calls somebody crazy, he knows that he is’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) on Sunday explained that President Donald Trump has a habit of projecting his insecurities about himself onto other people .
Pelosi made the remarks during an appearance on ABC with host George Stephanopoulos .
“ I would like to talk about some subjects other than the erratic nature of the president of the United States , ” Pelosi lamented .
“ But he has to know that every knock from him is a boost .
He ’ s the president who said I should have impeached George Bush because of the war in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m obsessed [ with impeachment ] .
” “ Frankly , I said , Donald Trump is not worth impeaching , ” she continued .
“ But when he crossed that line on Ukraine , he violated the Constitution in such a way that could not be ignored.
” Pelosi concluded : “ I don ’ t like to spend too much time on his crazy tweets because everything he says is a projection .
When he calls somebody crazy , he knows that he is .
Everything he says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who he is.
” Watch the video below from ABC .

"What strikes me as unique in this indictment it's sweeping and narrow in scope at the same time," said POLITICO's Emily Ngo. "So many people who are up and down the totem pole in Trump's world are now indicted as well. And they are a part of this whole mess he created for himself."
"Van, how do you think the 18 people indicted — this is the first time, we had unindicted co-conspirators in the special counsel's last charges," said anchor Phil Mattingly. "These 18 individuals. You talk about RICO, you think mob, you think flipping, you think people — I mean, Trump's been financing... the defense for his friends, allies. 18 people here."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"They woke up in a different world," said Jones. "This is a different prosecutor. This is literally the mirror image of what Jack Smith did. Jack Smith said, a lot of bad people here, I am going after one person, Donald Trump, I will leave everybody else alone. They will be unindicted co-conspirators. This one says, nuh-uh, all y'all in trouble. Everybody gonna get it. So they wake up in a different world. This prosecutor, unlike Jack Smith... she says, no, you're in it, too. So these people — if Mark Meadows thought he was home safe because he was cooperating, he's not home safe. If these unindicted co-conspirators thought they were — they're all indicted."
The way Willis is treating this case, argued Jones, is "actually more normal."
"This is what we see every day at the neighborhood level," said Jones. "Four kids know each other, one does something bad, that's normal. Prosecutors usually throw a — they don't throw the book at you, they throw the library at you. This woman, she threw the library at these people. That's what happens every day in these courts. To the extent people say Donald Trump was getting bad treatment, all the other prosecutions up to now, indictments up to now were unusual because so many people were able to get off scot-free. Not this time."
Watch the video below or at this link.


rawstory--2020-01-12--Ari Fleischer comes out against resurrecting White House briefings — and blames press ‘hostility’ to

Ari Fleischer comes out against resurrecting White House briefings — and blames press ‘hostility’ to Trump

In so-called normal times and under business-as-usual administrations the job of White House Press Secretary doesn ’ t lead to renown or infamy .
Those terms — normal , business as usual — don ’ t apply to Donald Trump ’ s tenure in the Oval Office , and his press secretaries have become household names mostly for the wrong reasons .
This article first appeared in Salon .
Sean Spicer ’ s claim to fame is being a terrible liar and an even worse dancer .
Sarah Huckabee Sanders distinguished herself by reducing the once-frequent White House press corps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by lies .
Her successor Stephanie Grisham , meanwhile , spends her time appearing on the One America News Network , Sinclair Broadcast Group stations , and Fox News instead of serving as a liaison between the press corps and the Oval Office .
More than 300 days have passed since the White House has held a news conference with reporters .
In light of the recent saber-rattling between the U.S. military and Iran , that number is stunning .
Times such as these require an official briefings from the White House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a duty to convey information to citizens via the press corps with clarity .
Such times also present tremendous opportunities to spin the administration ’ s actions in a persuasive light , leading citizens to have confidence in its actions .
Indeed , Ari Fleischer used his position as George W. Bush ’ s press secretary to sell a war that has been dragging on now for 17 years .
On Friday , Fleischer appeared in Pasadena to talk about the upcoming “ American Experience ” profile “ George W. Bush , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conferences at the Television Critics Association winter press tour .
This is where Salon sat down with him for an interview that took place before the “ American Experience ” panel .
Right around the same time , 13 former White House press secretaries , military and foreign service officials published a letter on CNN calling for the restoration of regular press briefings .
“ An informed press corps strengthens our ability to govern , ” the letter states .
“ Yes , presidents are now able to communicate directly via the internet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most Americans will learn about the work of the White House in the reports they see , read , and hear in what we collectively call ‘ the press.
’ ” The statement then observes that regular White House briefings generally lead to better and more responsible reporting , later adding , “ In times of military conflict and international crisis , these briefings take on even more importance .
Americans want to know the latest developments and seek the truth .
On social media , wild rumors can fly , and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is now well documented.
” “ For that reason , among many , the country needs trusted sources of information delivered on a timely and regular schedule .
That is the fundamental responsibility of people who serve as spokesmen and women for presidents , cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking government officials.
” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley responded to the letter by calling its writers “ D.C .
establishment swamp creatures.
” Among those who signed are Victoria Clarke , who worked under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , and Scott McClellan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press secretary .
Missing from that list are McClellan ’ s fellow Bush-era press secretaries Dana Perino and Fleischer .
Perino is now a Fox News anchor , and Fleischer is a contributor at Fox News .
In this one-on-one conversation with Salon , Fleischer talked about his view of the press ’ relationship with the White House in the current climate and was asked to reflect on his time as press secretary to the second President Bush , specifically with regard to conveying false information about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invasion of Iraq in 2003 .
Please note that this interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length .
I don ’ t know if you read the recent Twitter challenge from authors Don Winslow and Stephen King to Stephanie Grisham .
They stated that if she would hold a press briefing , they ’ ll give $ 200,000 to St. Jude ’ s Charity .
This was a serious offer , speaking to the fact that there has not been a White House press briefing for more than 300 days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional means of operating as an information bridge between the White House and the press corps .
So what do you think about the fact that the last couple of press secretaries have been not only less approachable , but granting less access to official information coming out of the White House ?
I ’ m a traditionalist , so it concerns me a lot and there ’ s a tremendous value to the briefing .
There certainly was during the Bush era , and historically now , the advantage to a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and buttress what he says .
The advantage to the country is it gives reporters a chance to ask more probing , longer follow-up questions .
But everything ’ s changed now in this era of hostility between President Trump and the press .
And I ’ ve never seen such rancor and hostility in both directions .
And so as much as I ’ m a traditionalist and see the benefits of the briefing , I don ’ t know that if they brought the briefing back in this current environment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public or the press secretary any good cause .
I just think it would turn the room into nothing but a TV show that was full of nasty arguments both directions .
I ’ m not going to disagree with the partisan rancor in this country That is abundantly clear .
But I do not believe that what you ’ re saying about the animosity in terms of the press , particularly the actual people in that briefing room , is justified .
I say that because there is a habit nowadays , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conflating the people who are on the ground and in that room doing their job as journalists and asking questions , with punditry .
You know this .
You ’ re a pundit .
So I understand that you ’ re going to have a viewpoint on this topic that ’ s going to be a bit skewed .
But I just want to say that when you ’ re blaming both sides , I need to disagree with that .
The questions that are being asked are probing and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
But I would also say that the reaction the president has had , and the press secretaries from Sean Spicer to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and now what we seen of Stephanie Grisham , that is where the rancor has showed up .
And you can call me biased on the behalf of those journalists , but when I ’ m watching the news , the rancor is really elevated from the [ White House ] side .
Just one other factor I ’ ll mention – and I ’ ll come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s another big factor here that ’ s changed things .
And that ’ s the accessibility of the president himself versus President Obama , President Bush , President Clinton .
No predecessor has been as open and accessible to the press as the president himself .
And that is the primary job of the White House press corps , is to ask the president hard questions .
So he ’ s doing it on virtually a daily basis , whether it ’ s a good day for him or a bad day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a helicopter with very loud rotors where he limits amount of time spent answering questions .
—that matters .
I mean , if you ’ re , if you ’ re sitting there , they ’ re getting seven , eight , nine , 10 questions — They ’ re getting in a couple of questions repeated seven , eight , nine , 10 times…And he ’ s not really answering those questions .
I ’ m just saying that there ’ s a difference between those formal briefings , which as you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you , as the press secretary , used to your advantage .
Just in terms of being able to distill information accurately and effectively to the press .
What you did , and I ’ m not saying this was right , but you distilled the message to the press , and the press gave it credibility and repeated it .
I ’ ll also say the press should have questioned you even more .
I would say that to every press secretary .
But the role that the press secretary plays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press .
By saying Trump is more accessible , that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that the press is getting a better value in the information he ’ s sharing .
That ’ s on the press , not on the president .
They have daily access and the press can get out of it whatever they seek .
And I don ’ t think venue matters .
They have access to the president , which is an improvement over prior White Houses for the press .
So given the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still wish as a traditionalist there were the briefing , but I ’ m realist enough to know that that rancor , that hostility would turn into a nasty red hot TV show where the few grandstanders in the room will spoil it for the lot of them , particularly print reporters who really do just want to get questions answered .
[ CNN White House correspondent ] Jim Acosta , for example .
He acts like a pundit when he should be a correspondent .
He states his opinion .
He tells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluding , and I think it ’ s that type of grandstanding along with the breakdown of the media in the modern era that has led to such polarizing media outlets .
We used to have a much more dedicated , neutral fact-finding press corps and now , in both directions , the press takes stands for and against .
And I think that ’ s a reality that ’ s going to live long after President Trump as well .
There ’ s just been a breakdown on what the media represents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All of it in the Trump era leads me to think that as traditional as I am , and as constructive as the briefing can be , it makes little to no sense to fiddle with the Trump administration .
At the same time you have to also consider who is that in that room .
You ’ re talking about the breakdown in the media .
But there are people in that room who aren ’ t actually , and I am saying this politely , traditional media .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The White House has invited propaganda machines into that room .
They ’ ve always been there .
So you ’ re saying this is normal , that you let in the likes of One America News , conspiracy bloggers , and newsletter writers , you let those in during the Bush era ?
Oh yeah .
I mean , my approach during the Bush era was the press secretary should not be the person who decides who was or who was not media .
There were people who worked for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Secret Service reviews .
I don ’ t think it ’ s helpful for the press secretary to decide you are acceptable as a journalist .
That ’ s a thin line on thin ice .
So I had people in there who were far , far left pundits and then far , far right pundits .
That ’ s the way it goes .
I ’ d spend most of my time taking questions from the front couple of rows , which is where the traditional mainstream outlets sit .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared and asked questions , he ’ s gone to the “ friendlier ” outlets that aren ’ t actual news organizations .
And that ’ s something as press secretary when you would brief Bush , my guess is , and you can clarify this , but I suspect you encouraged him to take questions from the traditional news outlets that carried the most weight .
He did , regularly .
What really changed is the internet and social media has created profound changes in the way the media operates .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the polarization that the rest of the nation is going through as well .
When I was there , there was no Facebook , there was no Twitter , it was the dawn of the social media internet era .
Toward the end of the Bush years , Twitter existed and Facebook existed , but I remember thinking if we ever wanted to produce a White House video , we would have released it through government channels and I ’ d have been hammered for creating government propaganda .
Technology changed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos and it was widely accepted .
It was measured then by how many clicks it got as a measure of whether it was popular , whether it was successful .
Gone was the notion that this could be propaganda even though the only difference was who carried it : YouTube versus the government channel .
Technology has really changed everything for the media probably in many ways that are positive in many ways that are negative and we ’ re still flushing that out .
Let ’ s talk about that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviews have been quoted .
You are getting on Fox News and saying a lot of things in the moment , that you ’ re having thrown back in your face and you ’ re being asked to defend yourself .
I ’ m talking about everything that ’ s happening in Iran , the missile strikes in Iraq , and all the reaction around this new conflict in the Middle East .
People have taken issue with your recent initial reaction of “ we ’ ll be greeted as liberators , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After that , there were marches in the streets of Iran showing that not to be the case .
Looking at this part of a 17-year war – one which you had role in starting – it ’ s curious to me that now , 17 years later that you wouldn ’ t look back and observe that maybe we shouldn ’ t be doing this , maybe we shouldn ’ t be increasing tensions with Iran .
Yeah , I ’ d do it the same way I always have .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe .
It ’ s not complicated .
Not even in hindsight ?
First off , you have to make the distinction between the military operation , the war itself , and then the occupation .
The aftermath fact is from March of 2003 till roughly July , August of 2003 , we were greeted as liberators .
You could go to cafes and downtown Baghdad , sit outside and have meals .
It was a peaceful city .
People welcomed the Americans .
Starting in the fall of 2003 predominantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible .
And that ’ s when we start to lose many more lives .
And that ’ s when the tide turned .
So two things can be right at the same time .
We were greeted as liberators , and then a guerrilla war became a highly successful guerrilla operation .
And we didn ’ t handle the occupation , right ?
We handled the military invasion .
We didn ’ t handle the occupation .
But I ’ m talking about the information that was dispensed to the press before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to that .
The other big thing was the issue of weapons of mass destruction .
This is an entirely legitimate issue .
Of course , I faithfully and accurately reported to the American people precisely what the CIA concluded .
The CIA concluded the Saddam had weapons of mass destruction , biological or chemical , no if , ands , or buts .
And the UN investigators went in and didn ’ t find any conclusive evidence of WMDs .
The CIA said that he had them .
That was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was what the president relied on when he made the decision to go to war .
Now , tragically , that intelligence turned out to be wrong , and we all acknowledge that that ’ s what led to the creation of the war .
They called the Robb-Silberman Commission , a bipartisan investigation into how and why it went wrong .
Their conclusion was it was an intelligence failure .
That ’ s the heart of it .
And to this day , I ’ m certain that if the CIA had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know .
We ’ re not sure if he has weapons of mass destruction or not , ” there never would have been [ a war ] .
And the tragedy is the information turned out to be wrong and we went to war based on a wrong conclusion by the CIA .
[ Editor ’ s Note : Fleischer elaborated on this in a Twitter thread back in March 2019 .
The Washington Post Fact Checker column followed up with a closer examination of its veracity . ]
Famously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t support Trump in the election .
But you do now .
At what point do you look at the events that are either connected to Trump or that he ’ s precipitated in terms of tensions not just between party but also between the people of this country and say to yourself , “ Enough is enough ” ?
Or , “ You know what ?
Looking back , I might not have been correct in this initial assessment ” ?
At what point do you maybe reassess and actually say in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t correct ?
” Do you apologize for anything ?
In the primary , I voted for somebody else .
I wanted to be for him in the general against Hillary Clinton .
And as I watched it all unfold , I ultimately left my ballot blank at the presidential level and voted for him all the levels below president .
And as I have watched President Trump , there are many times I have criticized him and there are many times that I have praised him .
I ’ m not afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I see it .
I regularly defended [ Special Counsel Robert Mueller ] because I know Bob Mueller .
I know what a man of integrity is .
I was one of few , if not the only person , on Fox News from start to finish to defend Bob and Bob Mueller ’ s honor and integrity and how he conducted that investigation .
And I ’ ve never hesitated to criticize the president on Twitter or on Fox News .
.
.
.
So I don ’ t hide what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the highest duties you have having once worked at the White House is no longer to be a spokesperson for any one president or cause .
That ’ s what I used to do with tremendous pride .
Now the more important thing is to try to shine a light on what ’ s right , what ’ s wrong , what worked , what didn ’ t , and explain it .
And that ’ s what I ’ ve tried to do with President Trump .
There are things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
I don ’ t support his manner .
His style is not mine .
It ’ s not like that any of the people that I ’ ve worked for .
It ’ s too truculent .
It ’ s too offensive .
But I ’ ll also point out that many of the criticisms against him are too truculent and too offensive .
He ’ s been called Adolf Hitler , he ’ s been called Mussolini .
As soon as he was the president-elect , a movement [ arose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ resistance , ” which was the word used against the Nazis in France .
.
.
.
Talk about going beyond the norms .
These are all actions beyond the norms .
But do you believe that he has been a normal president ?
You ’ ve worked for a man who I think people would say operated within the social contract of what we expect from a president .
He ’ s the president that the American people through the electoral college elected .
And I see a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn it in the electoral college , if they could have , who are now trying to overturn it through impeachment if they can .
And I think that is equally , if not more so , violative of the norms that I believe are important to the traditions that George Bush represented and the people that I used to work for represented .
So I think there ’ s way too much hostility in the system .
But it ’ s on every side .
It ’ s not just President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you say those norms are ?
To treat people you disagree with , with respect .
When President Obama was reelected in 2012 I tweeted the next morning , congratulations to President Obama .
He ’ s my president and he ’ s all our president .
I think that ’ s the way we should all be .
That ’ s how you show respect for the American people and the decisions made within our constitutional system .
I didn ’ t vote for President Obama .
I voted for Mitt Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my president .
As soon as President Trump was elected , you had this massive movement on Twitter and social media saying , “ not my president.
” That same thing happened with Obama .
But not by me .
You ’ re asking me questions of me .
That ’ s why I said to you , I instantly tweeted , he ’ s my president .
I wanted to strike that civil tone that much more representative of the Bush family ’ s tone .
So if you ’ re asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell you what I ’ ve done .
And that ’ s represented by what I believe about President Bush .
and how you treat people , and how you should be civil with people even if you disagree with them .
You ’ re a contributor to Fox News and a lot of people have pointed out that Fox is one of the less respectful , less civil , less considerate proponents of discourse right now , particularly in politics .
So when you ’ re talking about respect and civility — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s only so much you can say — but what do you see that they ’ re contributing to this conversation ?
Well , I think you have to make a distinction between opinion shows and news shows .
But I think there is a distinction between the opinion shows and the news shows , and the news shows are superb .
I think Bret Baier ’ s show at six o ’ clock is one of the best , most fair shows in journalism , and their daytime shows as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I watch CNN in the morning , and I watch Fox in the afternoon because I like the balance .
I want to hear what all parties are saying and I think you can make many of the same points you made about Fox , about CNN and certainly about MSNBC .
So that ’ s part of that polarization , the breakdown in the media that I was talking about .
But I also suggest if you see the things that I say on Fox , it is very much an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people about the importance of civility .
This is the point I was making to you about Bob Mueller and I could give you dozens of examples where I ’ ve said things that were critical of the president and said things that are supportive of the president .
I don ’ t have to be polarizing .

In so-called normal times and under business-as-usual administrations the job of White House Press Secretary doesn’t lead to renown or infamy. Those terms — normal, business as usual — don’t apply to Donald Trump’s tenure in the Oval Office, and his press secretaries have become household names mostly for the wrong reasons.
This article first appeared in Salon.
Sean Spicer’s claim to fame is being a terrible liar and an even worse dancer. Sarah Huckabee Sanders distinguished herself by reducing the once-frequent White House press corps briefings to very occasional insult exchanges peppered by lies. Her successor Stephanie Grisham, meanwhile, spends her time appearing on the One America News Network, Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, and Fox News instead of serving as a liaison between the press corps and the Oval Office.
More than 300 days have passed since the White House has held a news conference with reporters. In light of the recent saber-rattling between the U.S. military and Iran, that number is stunning. Times such as these require an official briefings from the White House and the military, who are charged with a duty to convey information to citizens via the press corps with clarity.
Such times also present tremendous opportunities to spin the administration’s actions in a persuasive light, leading citizens to have confidence in its actions. Indeed, Ari Fleischer used his position as George W. Bush’s press secretary to sell a war that has been dragging on now for 17 years.
On Friday, Fleischer appeared in Pasadena to talk about the upcoming “American Experience” profile “George W. Bush,” part of PBS’ day of press conferences at the Television Critics Association winter press tour. This is where Salon sat down with him for an interview that took place before the “American Experience” panel.
Right around the same time, 13 former White House press secretaries, military and foreign service officials published a letter on CNN calling for the restoration of regular press briefings.
“An informed press corps strengthens our ability to govern,” the letter states. “Yes, presidents are now able to communicate directly via the internet, social media and tweets. But most Americans will learn about the work of the White House in the reports they see, read, and hear in what we collectively call ‘the press.’”
The statement then observes that regular White House briefings generally lead to better and more responsible reporting, later adding, “In times of military conflict and international crisis, these briefings take on even more importance. Americans want to know the latest developments and seek the truth. On social media, wild rumors can fly, and our adversaries can manipulate disinformation to their advantage. This is now well documented.”
“For that reason, among many, the country needs trusted sources of information delivered on a timely and regular schedule. That is the fundamental responsibility of people who serve as spokesmen and women for presidents, cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking government officials.”
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley responded to the letter by calling its writers "D.C. establishment swamp creatures."
Among those who signed are Victoria Clarke, who worked under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Scott McClellan, who worked under Bush as his press secretary.
Missing from that list are McClellan’s fellow Bush-era press secretaries Dana Perino and Fleischer. Perino is now a Fox News anchor, and Fleischer is a contributor at Fox News.
In this one-on-one conversation with Salon, Fleischer talked about his view of the press’ relationship with the White House in the current climate and was asked to reflect on his time as press secretary to the second President Bush, specifically with regard to conveying false information about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction that led us to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Please note that this interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
I don't know if you read the recent Twitter challenge from authors Don Winslow and Stephen King to Stephanie Grisham.
No, I haven’t.
They stated that if she would hold a press briefing, they'll give $200,000 to St. Jude's Charity. This was a serious offer, speaking to the fact that there has not been a White House press briefing for more than 300 days.
Yeah.
You held that job and observed the traditional means of operating as an information bridge between the White House and the press corps. So what do you think about the fact that the last couple of press secretaries have been not only less approachable, but granting less access to official information coming out of the White House?
I'm a traditionalist, so it concerns me a lot and there's a tremendous value to the briefing. There certainly was during the Bush era, and historically now, the advantage to a president is you have people reinforce his message and buttress what he says. The advantage to the country is it gives reporters a chance to ask more probing, longer follow-up questions.
But everything's changed now in this era of hostility between President Trump and the press. And I've never seen such rancor and hostility in both directions. And so as much as I'm a traditionalist and see the benefits of the briefing, I don't know that if they brought the briefing back in this current environment, it would serve the press, the public or the press secretary any good cause. I just think it would turn the room into nothing but a TV show that was full of nasty arguments both directions.
I'm not going to disagree with the partisan rancor in this country That is abundantly clear. But I do not believe that what you're saying about the animosity in terms of the press, particularly the actual people in that briefing room, is justified.
I say that because there is a habit nowadays, as we're consuming media, of conflating the people who are on the ground and in that room doing their job as journalists and asking questions, with punditry. You know this. You’re a pundit. So I understand that you're going to have a viewpoint on this topic that’s going to be a bit skewed. But I just want to say that when you’re blaming both sides, I need to disagree with that.
The questions that are being asked are probing and they're certainly pressing tough issues with the president. But I would also say that the reaction the president has had, and the press secretaries from Sean Spicer to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and now what we seen of Stephanie Grisham, that is where the rancor has showed up. And you can call me biased on the behalf of those journalists, but when I'm watching the news, the rancor is really elevated from the [White House] side.
Just one other factor I’ll mention – and I’ll come back to that. But there's another big factor here that's changed things. And that's the accessibility of the president himself versus President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton. No predecessor has been as open and accessible to the press as the president himself. And that is the primary job of the White House press corps, is to ask the president hard questions. So he's doing it on virtually a daily basis, whether it's a good day for him or a bad day --
As he's getting on a helicopter with very loud rotors where he limits amount of time spent answering questions.
—that matters. I mean, if you're, if you're sitting there, they’re getting seven, eight, nine, 10 questions —
They're getting in a couple of questions repeated seven, eight, nine, 10 times…And he's not really answering those questions.
I don’t think that’s the case.
I'm just saying that there's a difference between those formal briefings, which as you know, you have a controlled environment that you, as the press secretary, used to your advantage. Just in terms of being able to distill information accurately and effectively to the press. What you did, and I’m not saying this was right, but you distilled the message to the press, and the press gave it credibility and repeated it. I'll also say the press should have questioned you even more. I would say that to every press secretary.
But the role that the press secretary plays carries a certain level of respect with the press. By saying Trump is more accessible, that doesn't necessarily mean that the press is getting a better value in the information he’s sharing.
That's on the press, not on the president. They have daily access and the press can get out of it whatever they seek. And I don't think venue matters. They have access to the president, which is an improvement over prior White Houses for the press. So given the fact that the president is so accessible, I still wish as a traditionalist there were the briefing, but I'm realist enough to know that that rancor, that hostility would turn into a nasty red hot TV show where the few grandstanders in the room will spoil it for the lot of them, particularly print reporters who really do just want to get questions answered.
[CNN White House correspondent] Jim Acosta, for example. He acts like a pundit when he should be a correspondent. He states his opinion. He tells the White House what they should be concluding, and I think it's that type of grandstanding along with the breakdown of the media in the modern era that has led to such polarizing media outlets. We used to have a much more dedicated, neutral fact-finding press corps and now, in both directions, the press takes stands for and against. And I think that's a reality that's going to live long after President Trump as well. There's just been a breakdown on what the media represents that's changed with this polarization. All of it in the Trump era leads me to think that as traditional as I am, and as constructive as the briefing can be, it makes little to no sense to fiddle with the Trump administration.
At the same time you have to also consider who is that in that room. You're talking about the breakdown in the media. But there are people in that room who aren't actually, and I am saying this politely, traditional media. They're not even really media at all. The White House has invited propaganda machines into that room.
They’ve always been there.
So you're saying this is normal, that you let in the likes of One America News, conspiracy bloggers ,and newsletter writers, you let those in during the Bush era?
Oh yeah. I mean, my approach during the Bush era was the press secretary should not be the person who decides who was or who was not media. There were people who worked for me who made that decision based on logistics and Secret Service reviews. I don't think it's helpful for the press secretary to decide you are acceptable as a journalist. That's a thin line on thin ice. So I had people in there who were far, far left pundits and then far, far right pundits. That’s the way it goes. I'd spend most of my time taking questions from the front couple of rows, which is where the traditional mainstream outlets sit.
The difference now is that when Trump has appeared and asked questions, he's gone to the “friendlier" outlets that aren't actual news organizations. And that's something as press secretary when you would brief Bush, my guess is, and you can clarify this, but I suspect you encouraged him to take questions from the traditional news outlets that carried the most weight.
He did, regularly. What really changed is the internet and social media has created profound changes in the way the media operates. And then breakdown of the media in terms of the polarization that the rest of the nation is going through as well.
When I was there, there was no Facebook, there was no Twitter, it was the dawn of the social media internet era. Toward the end of the Bush years, Twitter existed and Facebook existed, but I remember thinking if we ever wanted to produce a White House video, we would have released it through government channels and I'd have been hammered for creating government propaganda.
Technology changed, and the Obama administration regularly released YouTube videos and it was widely accepted. It was measured then by how many clicks it got as a measure of whether it was popular, whether it was successful. Gone was the notion that this could be propaganda even though the only difference was who carried it: YouTube versus the government channel.
Technology has really changed everything for the media probably in many ways that are positive in many ways that are negative and we're still flushing that out.
Let’s talk about that. A lot of your tweets and recent interviews have been quoted. You are getting on Fox News and saying a lot of things in the moment, that you’re having thrown back in your face and you’re being asked to defend yourself.
I’m talking about everything that’s happening in Iran, the missile strikes in Iraq, and all the reaction around this new conflict in the Middle East. People have taken issue with your recent initial reaction of “we'll be greeted as liberators,” which is what you said in 2003. After that, there were marches in the streets of Iran showing that not to be the case.
Looking at this part of a 17-year war – one which you had role in starting – it's curious to me that now, 17 years later that you wouldn't look back and observe that maybe we shouldn't be doing this, maybe we shouldn’t be increasing tensions with Iran.
Yeah, I'd do it the same way I always have. And that's to say what I believe. It's not complicated.
Not even in hindsight?
First off, you have to make the distinction between the military operation, the war itself, and then the occupation. The aftermath fact is from March of 2003 till roughly July, August of 2003, we were greeted as liberators. You could go to cafes and downtown Baghdad, sit outside and have meals. It was a peaceful city. People welcomed the Americans. Starting in the fall of 2003 predominantly, that's when the occupation turned terrible. And that's when we start to lose many more lives. And that's when the tide turned.
So two things can be right at the same time. We were greeted as liberators, and then a guerrilla war became a highly successful guerrilla operation. And we didn't handle the occupation, right? We handled the military invasion. We didn't handle the occupation.
But I’m talking about the information that was dispensed to the press before the war.
I’ll get back to that. The other big thing was the issue of weapons of mass destruction. This is an entirely legitimate issue. Of course, I faithfully and accurately reported to the American people precisely what the CIA concluded. The CIA concluded the Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, biological or chemical, no if, ands, or buts.
And the UN investigators went in and didn't find any conclusive evidence of WMDs.
The CIA said that he had them. That was the CIA's conclusion. And that was what the president relied on when he made the decision to go to war.
Now, tragically, that intelligence turned out to be wrong, and we all acknowledge that that's what led to the creation of the war. They called the Robb-Silberman Commission, a bipartisan investigation into how and why it went wrong. Their conclusion was it was an intelligence failure. That's the heart of it.
And to this day, I'm certain that if the CIA had said to President Bush, “We don't know. We're not sure if he has weapons of mass destruction or not,” there never would have been [a war].
And the tragedy is the information turned out to be wrong and we went to war based on a wrong conclusion by the CIA.
[Editor's Note: Fleischer elaborated on this in a Twitter thread back in March 2019. The Washington Post Fact Checker column followed up with a closer examination of its veracity.]
Famously, you said that you didn't support Trump in the election. But you do now. At what point do you look at the events that are either connected to Trump or that he’s precipitated in terms of tensions not just between party but also between the people of this country and say to yourself, “Enough is enough”? Or, “You know what? Looking back, I might not have been correct in this initial assessment”? At what point do you maybe reassess and actually say in public, “Maybe I wasn't correct?” Do you apologize for anything?
In the primary, I voted for somebody else. I wanted to be for him in the general against Hillary Clinton. And as I watched it all unfold, I ultimately left my ballot blank at the presidential level and voted for him all the levels below president. And as I have watched President Trump, there are many times I have criticized him and there are many times that I have praised him. I'm not afraid to be independent and call it as I see it.
I regularly defended [Special Counsel Robert Mueller] because I know Bob Mueller. I know what a man of integrity is. I was one of few, if not the only person, on Fox News from start to finish to defend Bob and Bob Mueller's honor and integrity and how he conducted that investigation. And I've never hesitated to criticize the president on Twitter or on Fox News.
. . . So I don't hide what I think or say. And I think one of the highest duties you have having once worked at the White House is no longer to be a spokesperson for any one president or cause. That's what I used to do with tremendous pride. Now the more important thing is to try to shine a light on what's right, what's wrong, what worked, what didn't, and explain it.
And that's what I've tried to do with President Trump. There are things that he's done that . . . I don’t support his manner. His style is not mine. It's not like that any of the people that I've worked for. It's too truculent. It's too offensive.
But I'll also point out that many of the criticisms against him are too truculent and too offensive. He's been called Adolf Hitler, he's been called Mussolini. As soon as he was the president-elect, a movement [arose] that was based on the word “resistance,” which was the word used against the Nazis in France. . . . Talk about going beyond the norms. These are all actions beyond the norms.
But do you believe that he has been a normal president? You've worked for a man who I think people would say operated within the social contract of what we expect from a president.
He's the president that the American people through the electoral college elected. And I see a lot of people who rejected that, who tried to overturn it in the electoral college, if they could have, who are now trying to overturn it through impeachment if they can. And I think that is equally, if not more so, violative of the norms that I believe are important to the traditions that George Bush represented and the people that I used to work for represented. So I think there's way too much hostility in the system. But it's on every side. It's not just President Trump.
Just to clarify, what would you say those norms are?
To treat people you disagree with, with respect. When President Obama was reelected in 2012 I tweeted the next morning, congratulations to President Obama. He's my president and he's all our president. I think that's the way we should all be. That's how you show respect for the American people and the decisions made within our constitutional system. I didn't vote for President Obama. I voted for Mitt Romney, but I recognized he's my president. As soon as President Trump was elected, you had this massive movement on Twitter and social media saying, “not my president.”
That same thing happened with Obama.
But not by me. You're asking me questions of me. That's why I said to you, I instantly tweeted, he's my president. I wanted to strike that civil tone that much more representative of the Bush family’s tone. So if you're asking about my behavior, I can just tell you what I've done. And that's represented by what I believe about President Bush. and how you treat people, and how you should be civil with people even if you disagree with them.
You're a contributor to Fox News and a lot of people have pointed out that Fox is one of the less respectful, less civil, less considerate proponents of discourse right now, particularly in politics. So when you're talking about respect and civility — obviously they employ you, so there's only so much you can say — but what do you see that they're contributing to this conversation?
Well, I think you have to make a distinction between opinion shows and news shows.
Viewers don’t make that distinction.
But I think there is a distinction between the opinion shows and the news shows, and the news shows are superb. I think Bret Baier’s show at six o'clock is one of the best, most fair shows in journalism, and their daytime shows as well. I wake up in the morning, I watch CNN in the morning, and I watch Fox in the afternoon because I like the balance. I want to hear what all parties are saying and I think you can make many of the same points you made about Fox, about CNN and certainly about MSNBC.
So that's part of that polarization, the breakdown in the media that I was talking about. But I also suggest if you see the things that I say on Fox, it is very much an independent voice and a voice that reminds people about the importance of civility.
This is the point I was making to you about Bob Mueller and I could give you dozens of examples where I've said things that were critical of the president and said things that are supportive of the president. I don't have to be polarizing.


rawstory--2020-01-12--Trump ghostwriter asked to explain president’s new habit of slurring: ‘We don’t know, it might be ea

Trump ghostwriter asked to explain president’s new habit of slurring: ‘We don’t know, it might be early dementia’

Appearing on MSNBC ’ s “ AM Joy ” on Sunday morning , the ghostwriter of Donald Trump ’ s “ Art of the Deal ” was asked about the president ’ s new habit of slurring his words and what it says about his current state .
After sharing clips of the president having trouble speaking when addressing the country on the killing of Iranian military head Qassem Suliemani , host Joy Reid asked author Tony Schwartz if he had ever seen Trump have that much trouble speaking .
“ So , the slurring , I ’ ve noticed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ A lot of other reporters have noticed it as they posted about his speeches .
He seems to be slurring more and more .
did he speak that way when.. ” “ Oh , my gosh , no , ” Schwartz interrupted .
“ That is a dramatic shift .
He was reasonably articulate when I knew him .
He was — first of all , he was not — his nervous system was not so intensely aroused and activated as it is right now .
The more activated you become , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and simply.
” “ I think this is a man who is so in fight-or-flight all the time , that it ’ s influencing him , ” he continued .
“ I also think it might be — we don ’ t know about this — but it might be a function of his age .
It might be early dementia , all of those are possible and you have to throw in ADD that he can ’ t keep track of what ’ s on his mind and so he gets ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ His father had suffered from dementia , ” host Reid pressed .
“ Was it about at the age he did now ?
” “ His father didn ’ t get dementia yeah until significantly older than Trump is now .
Alzheimer ’ s technically is what he had , but same net result , ” the author replied .

Appearing on MSNBC's "AM Joy" on Sunday morning, the ghostwriter of Donald Trump's "Art of the Deal" was asked about the president's new habit of slurring his words and what it says about his current state.
After sharing clips of the president having trouble speaking when addressing the country on the killing of Iranian military head Qassem Suliemani, host Joy Reid asked author Tony Schwartz if he had ever seen Trump have that much trouble speaking.
"So, the slurring, I've noticed it," host Reid began. "A lot of other reporters have noticed it as they posted about his speeches. He seems to be slurring more and more. did he speak that way when.."
"Oh, my gosh, no," Schwartz interrupted. "That is a dramatic shift. He was reasonably articulate when I knew him. He was -- first of all, he was not -- his nervous system was not so intensely aroused and activated as it is right now. The more activated you become, the harder it is to speak clearly and simply."
"I think this is a man who is so in fight-or-flight all the time, that it's influencing him," he continued. "I also think it might be -- we don't know about this -- but it might be a function of his age. It might be early dementia, all of those are possible and you have to throw in ADD that he can't keep track of what's on his mind and so he gets ahead of it and loses the words."
"His father had suffered from dementia," host Reid pressed. "Was it about at the age he did now?"
"His father didn't get dementia yeah until significantly older than Trump is now. Alzheimer's technically is what he had, but same net result," the author replied.
Watch below:


rawstory--2020-01-12--Trump demands Justice Roberts dismiss ‘phony’ impeachment that ‘should not even be allowed to procee

Trump demands Justice Roberts dismiss ‘phony’ impeachment that ‘should not even be allowed to proceed’

President Donald Trump on Sunday suggested that Justice John Roberts should declare that impeachment charges against him are unconstitutional .
@ @ @ @ @ News over the weekend , Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani first made the suggestion that Roberts @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impeachment trial by dismissing it .
“ Great idea , ” Trump wrote @ @ @ @ @ out video of Giuliani ’ s appearance .
“ This phony Impeachment Hoax should not @ @ @ @ @ .
Did NOTHING wrong .
Just a partisan vote .
Zero Republicans .
Never happened @ @ @

"Trump and Giuliani had a handshake agreement that Giuliani and his team would get paid by the Trump political operation for their post-election work, according to Timothy Parlatore, an attorney for longtime Giuliani ally Bernard Kerik," Schwartz says. "But the Trump campaign and their affiliated committees ultimately did not honor that pledge, according to campaign finance records. The failure to pay Giuliani and his team came up last week in a private interview between prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith's team and Bernard Kerik, a member of Giuliani's team in late 2020, according to Parlatore."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
Schwartz recalls that "Federal Election Commission records and testimony from the House January 6th Select Committee hearings reveal that none of the private sector lawyers identified -- but not indicted -- in that case got paid for their post-election work: Not Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro or John Eastman."
Trump reneging on his gentleman's contract with Giuliani, Schartz observes, "is all the more striking" given that Giuliani was charged along with Trump by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for trying to steal the election in Georgia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 — upon which Giuliani built his career as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
Trump's fundraising push after he lost to President Joe Biden is also under scrutiny by Smith, whom Politico's Betsy Woodruff Swan and Kyle Cheney explained on August 8th is investigating if Trump's Save America Political Action Committee "violated federal laws by raising money off claims of voter fraud they knew were false."
Those efforts, predicated on Trump's insistence that the election was stolen from him, raked in $250 million, according to the final report released by the House January 6th Select Committee.
READ MORE: Why Trump’s Georgia indictment is a 'reminder of the genius of American federalism': op-ed
"The money came in response to countless fundraising appeals that claimed it was needed to fund Trump's election challenges in court," Schwartz continues. "Yet instead of paying the lawyers who tried unsuccessfully to overturn his loss, the money went into Trump’s leadership PAC."
In fact, "Trump's entire political network, including his joint fundraising committees, spent over $47 million combined from the start of 2020 through the end of 2021 on legal fees, according to a report by OpenSecrets," Schwartz adds. "Today, that money is instead helping Trump pay his own legal bills. The PAC spent over $20 million in the first half of the year alone on legal fees as the president faced the first two of his four indictments."
READ MORE: Judge randomly assigned to Georgia Trump case once worked for Willis: report
Schwartz's report is available at this link.