Hullabaloo

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

 
No, Trump didn't really change his mind on torture

by digby

The recaps of Trump's NY Times interview yesterday indicated that general Mattis had made him rethink his commitment to torture which surprised me since I'm convinced that brutality and dominance are central to his view of how the world works.

It turns out he didn't. Here's the quote:

General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, what do you think of waterboarding? He said — I was surprised — he said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful.’ He said, ‘I’ve always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.’ And I was very impressed by that answer. I was surprised, because he’s known as being like the toughest guy. And when he said that, I’m not saying it changed my mind. 

He was impressed and surprised because you'd think a guy called "Mad Dog" would be as tough as Donald Trump. But he's not.

.



digby 11/23/2016 01:00:00 PM

 
Billionaires and Blackwater to drain the swamp?

by digby

The hits just keep on coming. Trump named wingnut extremist Betsy DeVos for Department of Education. She the Amway heiress (figures Trump would admire a successful "multi-level marketing" billionaire) who has devoted her life to privatizing the public education system.

There are also rumors that her brother Erik Prince is being considered for a role in the administration. He was the CEO of Blackwater, the ugly, criminal mercenary enterprise that was banned from Iraq for killing innocent civilians.

He's a big Trump supporter, touting Trump's sympatico approach to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, naturally.

Which brings me to this startling revelation:

Donald Trump’s eldest son, emerging as a potential envoy for the president-elect, held private discussions with diplomats, businessmen and politicians in Paris last month that focused in part on finding a way to cooperate with Russia to end the war in Syria, according to people who took part in the meetings.

Thirty people, including Donald Trump Jr., attended the Oct. 11 event at the Ritz Paris, which was hosted by a French think tank. The founder of the think tank, Fabien Baussart, and his wife, Randa Kassis, have worked closely with Russia to try to end the conflict.

Ms. Kassis, who was born in Syria, is a leader of a Syrian opposition group endorsed by the Kremlin. The group wants a political transition in Syria—but in cooperation with President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s close ally.

The disclosure of a meeting between the younger Mr. Trump and pro-Russia figures—even if not Russian government officials—poses new questions about contacts between the president-elect, his family and foreign powers. It is also likely to heighten focus on the elder Mr. Trump’s stated desire to cooperate with the Kremlin once in office.

President-elect Donald Trump’s charitable foundation engaged in self-dealing in 2015 and prior years, the foundation said in an Internal Revenue Service filing.

In an interview, Ms. Kassis said she pressed the younger Mr. Trump during the meeting on the importance of cooperating with the Russians in the Middle East.

“We have to be realistic. Who’s on the ground in Syria? Not the U.S., not France,” Ms. Kassis said from Moscow. “Without Russia, we can’t have any solution in Syria.”

Of the president-elect’s son, she said: “I think he’s very pragmatic and is flexible.”

No, he's not "pragmatic" and "flexible" he's a fucking moron just like his father. It's these other folks who have an agenda.



via GIPHY

.




digby 11/23/2016 11:00:00 AM

 

Imperial life on the Potomac

by digby

I wrote about the Trump transition's staffing outsourcing for Salon this morning:

As we go into the long Thanksgiving weekend, shell-shocked by events surrounding the presidential transition getting more surreal by the day, it’s almost comforting to read a piece of news that sounds even slightly like familiar political activity. It’s the kind of thing that would have made for screaming headlines and much gnashing of teeth on the left just a few months ago, but now seems almost quaintly normal. I’m speaking of the news that Donald Trump’s transition team has outsourced much of the lower level government staffing to the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, which is in the hands of right wing extremist Jim DeMint. According to Politico:

Heritage is “absolutely the fulcrum, and essential to staffing the administration with people who reflect Trump’s commitments across the board,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent group that opposes abortion rights. “I can say it’s been a source of great confidence during the election to know that principled people were planning for a Trump administration.”

Three sources from different conservative groups said that Heritage employees have been soliciting, stockpiling and vetting résumés for months with an eye on stacking Trump’s administration with conservative appointees across the government. One source described the efforts as a “shadow transition team” and “an effort to have the right kind of people in there.”

Most members of Trump’s transition team have some affiliation with Heritage, it turns out. All the conservative talent in town knows this and have figured out how to funnel their CVs to the right places. It’s quite a stampede, according to the article, as one might expect. These are people who’ve been in the wilderness for eight long years and this is probably an unexpected opportunity.

It’s surprising in some respects, however, because throughout the Republican campaign the Heritage Foundation was sharply critical of Trump as an unreliable conservative who could not be trusted. DeMint, the former senator and keeper of the right wing flame met with Trump and decided to simply keep his distance rather than oppose him directly. But they did help with one important matter that according to the Politico article is considered to have been a defining issue for the campaign. It’s one that may have persuaded a number of those college-educated whites and evangelicals to stick with Trump rather than vote for Hillary or stay home: the Supreme Court.

Perhaps Heritage’s most significant involvement during the campaign was its experts’ shaping of Trump’s list of Supreme Court choices, ultimately resulting in a selection of conservative thinkers who oppose abortion rights. It’s hard to overstate the importance of that list, which was created in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation and the conservative Federalist Society.
Prior to Trump’s release of the list — the first installment came in May — many conservative activists and leaders were vehemently and vocally opposed to his candidacy …

But Trump’s list of potential judicial appointments gave movement leaders space to crystallize the contest into a binary choice between Hillary Clinton, who would certainly appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, and Trump, who promised to appoint only conservative, anti-abortion rights justices.

Trump won a higher percentage of evangelical voters than the born-again George W. Bush.

Now that Trump has won, Heritage has the kind of juice in D.C. it hasn’t had in almost a decade. DeMint and the foundation are the connection between the conservative movement establishment and the Trump transition and future administration. And the movement is thrilled with what they are seeing as a sign that they are going to be in the driver’s seat:

“We’re just thrilled with what we see from the transition; it gets better every day. To the extent Heritage is involved in it, hats off to Heritage,” said Richard Viguerie, a denizen of the conservative movement who has been involved in CNP for more than 30 years

This also signals a continuation of the war within the party, however. Heritage has been one of the movement organizations eviscerating establishment figures like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell over the past few years. And nobody knows how much influence they will have on the higher levels of the Trump administration. They may not end up being too keen on Steve Bannon’s big-spending ways, although if the reports of his infrastructure plans are true, the idea of privatizing our roads, bridges, water and transit system may win them over.

For those who worry about the Trump administration’s basic competence at running the government, this isn’t good news. You may remember that the last time these folks were asked to staff a government, during the Iraq war, it didn’t work out too well:

They had been hired to perform a low-level task: collecting and organizing statistics, surveys and wish lists from the Iraqi ministries for a report that would be presented to potential donors at the end of the month. But as suicide bombs and rocket attacks became almost daily occurrences, more and more senior staffers defected. In short order, six of the new young hires found themselves managing the country’s $13 billion budget, making decisions affecting millions of Iraqis.

Viewed from the outside, their experience illustrates many of the problems that have beset the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), a paucity of experienced applicants, a high turnover rate, bureaucracy, partisanship and turf wars.[…]For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their résumés at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank.

It was one of the most astonishing stories to come out of the early days of the Iraq war. The Bush administration had decided to make ideological commitment to “the cause” a litmus test for hires to staff the new CPA under Paul Bremer. The place they went was naturally the most ideological think tank in town.

The debacle of that project — the wasted money, the lack of expertise and total inefficiency — has been well documented, most evocatively in the book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City” by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. In Iraq, the Bush administration saw an opportunity to run a political experiment and didn’t understand that it takes actual proficiency and know-how to build something so complicated from the ground up.

Staffing their brave new white nationalist alt-right kleptocracy with Heritage Foundation résumés is a sign that Donald Trump and Steve Bannon may be making the same mistake.

.

digby 11/23/2016 09:00:00 AM

 

By hook or by crook

by Tom Sullivan

Outgoing NC Gov. Pat McCrory, via NCDOT Communications.

North Carolina did not see a Karl Rove-like meltdown on election night when results showed Gov. Pat McCrory losing his reelection bid to Attorney General Roy Cooper by 5,000 votes. The meltdown has been more of a slow burn. McCrory as refused to concede, even as absentee and provisional vote tallies show the margin against him widening.

Civitas, the Art Pope-funded think tank, as filed suit in federal court to delay final certification of results while the state verifies the addresses of over 90,000 same-day registrants.

McCrory's team, meanwhile, is alleging widespread voting irregularities:

Rather than throwing in the towel, McCrory is instead throwing around wild and unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud across the state. The governor is claiming that results in half of North Carolina’s 100 counties were tainted by irregularities, but some of those claims have already been dismissed by county election boards. The result is close enough to trigger a recount, which McCrory officially requested today, but past recounts in close North Carolina elections have not produced any significant changes in vote tallies.

Nonetheless, McCrory’s team is accusing Cooper of winning by illicit means and trying to cover up evidence of a supposedly fraudulent victory. “Why is Roy Cooper so insistent on circumventing the electoral process and counting the votes of dead people and felons?” one McCrory flack said in a statement. “It may be because he needs those fraudulent votes to count in order to win.”

Salon's Simon Malloy notes that in the same election, Donald Trump won North Carolina by 4 points and Republican Sen. Richard Burr won reelection by 6 points. Being "champion of the country’s most notorious anti-LGBTQ law" had nothing to do with McCrory's loss, of course. But if Roy Cooper's team somehow managed to manipulate results to take out McCrory alone, now that's some targeting. I'd want to hire them.

McCroy's end game, rumor has it, may be to sow enough doubt long enough to create a legitimacy crisis that would trigger the involvement of the GOP-controlled legislature in settling the election. The News and Observer says it's not that simple:

Yes, N.C. lawmakers can declare a winner, a power given to them both by the N.C. Constitution, which says the General Assembly can settle “contested” state races, but also a 2005 law cited by the New York Times and Slate that says losers in Council of State races can appeal the results to the legislature.

[...]

As for whether such a decision now could be reviewed by courts, here’s what that 2005 N.C. statute actually says: “The decision of the General Assembly in determining the contest of the election pursuant to this section may not be reviewed by the General Court of Justice.” According to the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, the “General Court of Justice” is the entire N.C. court system, which includes Appellate, Superior and District courts.

That wouldn't stop the federal courts from jumping in, says Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog):

If there is clear evidence both that Roy Cooper got more votes in North Carolina, with no plausible basis to claim that fraud infected the result (and by all indications so far, both of these facts are true), it could well be both a Due Process and Equal Protection Clause violation for the North Carolina legislature on a partisan basis to consider a “contest” and overturn the results and hand them to Pat McCrory. There are cases where federal courts have gotten involved in these kinds of ugly election disputes (think Roe v. Alabama, Bush v. Gore). But a brazen power grab without a plausible basis for overturning the results of a democratically conducted election? I expect the federal courts would take a very close look at such a thing.

McCrory doesn't have to be Catholic to throw a Hail Mary.

McCrory's first priority after installation will I guess be the No More Elections Act https://t.co/FNe12oXdQX

— David Dayen (@ddayen) November 21, 2016

Undercover Blue 11/23/2016 06:00:00 AM

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

 

Our Pain, Moonves, Zucker, Mercer and Breitbart's Profits

by Spocko

I'm pissed off at the news media, because I think they failed their duty to the truth. But that's an old timey view of the news media. The metric for success in mainstream media is revenue for shareholders. Les Moonves is measured by how well he fulfilled his duty to shareholders.

Les Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, celebrated Donald Trump’s candidacy for the second time on Monday, calling it “good for us economically.” Moonves, speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference at the Park Hotel in San Francisco, described the “circus” of a presidential campaign and the flow of political advertising dollars, and stated that it “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say.”

“So what can I say? The money’s rolling in, this is fun,” Moonves continued, observing that the debates had attracted record audiences.
Feburary 29, 2016, -- Lee Fang , The Intercept

What if generating money was taken out of the equation? What if you didn't have to show shareholders you are making a profit, not even breaking even?

In the high tech venture capital world people get money to realize an idea. They don't have the instant demand to make money in the beginning. The money they spend during their early months and years with little or no revenue coming in is called the "burn rate" the goal is a successful product, service or company. The companies are looking towards a "liquidity event" an acquisition, an IPO or a profitable company. Things are different if you never even have to attempt to do any of those things. What if you have "money to burn" that keeps coming for as long as you do one specific thing? Like push an specific idea or point of view.

Last week on the Majority Report Sam Seder interviewed Matt Phelan, on his piece in Jacobin, The House of Breitbart & the New Fascism how Breitbart, Bannon and O'Keefe were funded and rose to power.Link  The article is excellent and answers some of the, "My god how did we get here?" questions about Bannon.

I really recommend people listen to the interview or read the whole Jacobin piece. Then if you want to see an example of how James O'Keefe's schtick works, read this piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker "James O'Keefe Stings himself."  They are both about issues of media, activism, political power and funding.

Rebekah, Robert, and Diana Mercer at the 2014 World Science Festival Gala on April 7, 2014. Rebekah is one of 16 on Trump's transition team executive committee. Her father Robert is among Trump’s top financial backers

One of the things that is clear is the power of a billionaire who is willing to fund you and your radical ideas. Phelan names some billionaires I wasn't aware of but one name sounded familiar,  Robert Mercer.

Last year, Breitbart News received substantial funding from Long Island–based hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, who has donated upwards of $15 million to conservative groups since 2012. (It was happy, satisfied customer Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who reportedly pushed for Trump to hire Bannon as his new campaign chief.)

And there was something else about that name that rang a dog whistle.  Remember the planned Islamic center in Lower Manhattan?
Guess who was behind the ad campaign attacking it?

Robert Mercer, the co-CEO of the giant hedge fund manager Renaissance Technologies, appears to have financed the ad campaign entirely himself, through a $1 million contribution on July 26, 2011.  - Politico January 18, 2011

When a billionaire spends his money to push an idea, it doesn't have to have a monetary pay off.  A profit-making corporation needs to show how an investment adds to the health of the business.  If  Mercer wants to spend $10-15 million for a Muslim hating, money-losing media outlet, nobody is stopping him. And, if in the process he figures out how to use it to save money, to quote Donald Trump, "That's just smart business"

One thing to keep an eye on during the Trump administration: the resolution of a long-running tax dispute between Renaissance Technologies and the Internal Revenue Service. The tax agency is challenging a series of financial maneuvers that reduced Renaissance managers’ tax bills. Although the amount in dispute isn’t public, a Senate report in 2014 estimated that the moves may have saved $6 billion or more.
--November 11, 2016 Bloomberg Politics 

Phalen's piece shows how comparatively little money it took to prop up Breitbart and put the country on this ever more radical right-wing path.

Think about all the money that went to mainstream media in political ads this year. Was any of it earmarked for better journalism? Could the media moguls have rolled any of that out in the direction of investigation of Donald Trump pre-election?

In a recent interview with CNN's Jeff Zucker, he stressed how the revenues for 2017 are going to be lower than in 2016. He is giving his investors guidance so they don't punish him when there are lower revenues. This is his real concern, because they have the power to fire him. What is more likely to get a news media CEO, who sets the direction of the company  fired? Failure to do their duty to the public? Or failure to increase the bottom line?

So how do you punish Zucker and Moonves and the big media for their failure? Zucker has already said, revenues are going to go down.

Over a decade ago I developed the Spocko method to defund right-wing media. It was extremely effective and wildly successful. Today mainstream commercial advertisers don't want to associate their brand with sexism, bigotry and violent rhetoric on right-wing radio and TV. But like any strategy and tactic, the opposition adapts.

In the world of measuring media success by revenue, losing ad revenue is a massive blow to the distributors.  How to they stay afloat now? Several ways:

• Accepting the new low revenue from commercial advertisers as the new normal.
• Cutting payments to "talent"
• Going private to hide loses
• Constantly renegotiating debt to avoid bankruptcy
• Moving money losing right-wing talk radio shows to tiny stations
• Getting as much election ads money as possible this season
• Direct infusions of cash from billionaires who want to reach a specific audience
• Getting money laundered through groups like the Heritage Foundation

On the right sites like Breitbart don't have a duty to the public, the truth or their advertisers. Even the moderating influence of corporate advertisers can't be used on them. It's one thing for an unaccountable billionaire to support racism, bigotry and sexism, it's another thing for a brand to do that.

But they are still popular Spocko! They are still going! Yes, but beyond generating lower revenue than in the past, they lost Corporate America's acceptance. That's not going to come back because they still want to appeal to multiple audiences and avoid controversy.

#GivingTuesday

My understanding is that today is #GivingTuesday sooo if you are feeling the need for someone  to tell you the truth, to fight with you and for you, then look around for the people and groups that have done good work.

I know the right thinks George Soros pays all the activists and media on the left, but that's not the reality. Most left-wing activists, bloggers and media never see Soros money or Clinton machine money. (That said, if you ARE a left-wing billionaire, be advised I take multiple currencies, not just quatloos.

I and the people who run the sites I write for like Hullabaloo,  Crooks and Liars, The Smirking Trump (formally the Smirking Chimp) ShadowProof (Formerly Firedoglake) all need money to keep going.

My friends in radio don't have billionaire backing but still do amazing work, folks like  Angie Coiro with In Deep, Nicole Sandler from the Nicole Sandler Show R.J. Eskow of Zero Hour, Brad Friedman the Brad Blog and Sam Seder of The Majority Report.

There are groups I'm involved in, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the  Center for Media and Democracy and Nebraskans Against Gun Violence that all do amazing work.

For decades I worked with and for a group doing social justice work. One of the directors had a bumper sticker on her car. "Some of us give by going, others go by giving." It would be easier to get a few left-wing billionaires to write checks, and we could then sit back and watch billionaire surrogates fight it out. But when we have a sense of belonging to the groups doing this work, it helps both the people giving and the people going.

SPOCK: One man cannot summon the future.
KIRK: But one man can change the present.


Spocko 11/22/2016 06:30:00 PM

 
Don't help him (at least until we can figure out what the hell is going on)

by digby

This piece by Michael Tomasky about Democrats needing to oppose Trump and listen to their base features a helpful reminder of some similar situations in the not so distant past:

In recent history, the Democrats were most notably in the oppositional spotlight twice: in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president, and then in 2001-2002 when it was George W. Bush. Both times, the Democrats were overly accommodating. The 1980s are ancient history now in terms of polarization, but just for the record, I’ll note for you that 63 Democratic House members and 30 senators backed Ronald Reagan’s first budget. That represented nearly a third of all Democrats then in Congress.

When Dubya became president, things were more polarized, but even so, three Democratic senators and 13 House members backed Bush’s first tax cut. Those numbers are small, but they’re a lot more than the zero votes Republicans routinely gave Barack Obama (he did get three GOP senators on the stimulus package, but no House members). And many more Democrats backed the No Child Left Behind act, another early Bush signature bill.

The Democrats who cast these yea votes did so in part for their own local reasons, but there has also long been a fear on the Democratic side of opposing these Republican presidents’ big initiatives because the Democrats feared they’d work, and then they (the Democrats) would be seen as “anti-growth.” The same logic was at work on the Iraq War vote for many of them, especially the ones with an eye on the White House—if the war was a success and they voted against it, they’d look “weak.”

They were wrong every time. Voting for Republican economic schemes just ended up muddying their own message and lending bipartisan cover to a massive wealth transfer to those at the top. And voting for Bush’s war, well…

In casting these votes, Democrats went against the passion of their grassroots. This has been a key difference between the two parties for a good 20 years now: The Republicans relentlessly pander to their base, while the Democrats keep theirs at arm’s length (think of the way Pelosi immediately slammed the door shut on impeachment talk when she became Speaker in 2007).

He's right about resistance. I'm not so sure that "the grassroots" agree on what that means, unfortunately.It sounds like Bernie Sanders is the new leader of the grassroots so I'm sure it will be more clear in the future. I'll leave that to others going forward.

From my perspective it's too early to know how to react to this freakish psychopath beyond trying to remain as clear in my mind as possible about what he is and what he is doing. It's very easy to lose focus in this weird environment, everything is surreal and bizarre and it's taking everything I have to maintain a sense of reality. So, I'll document the atrocities as best I can and try to analyze what's happening to the best of my ability in this chaotic environment.

But yes, one of the biggest dangers is that Democrats will see it's in their interests to help Trump. I hope they don't do it. Giving this man bipartisan cover is a mistake. I know it in my bones.

.


digby 11/22/2016 05:00:00 PM

 
He put the press in its place

by digby

This New Yorker piece by David Remnick about the Monday meeting with the press is just ... oh dear God:

First came the obsessive Twitter rants directed at “Hamilton” and “Saturday Night Live.” Then came Monday’s astonishing aria of invective and resentment aimed at the media, delivered in a conference room on the twenty-fifth floor of Trump Tower. In the presence of television executives and anchors, Trump whined about everything from NBC News reporter Katy Tur’s coverage of him to a photograph the news network has used that shows him with a double chin. Why didn’t they use “nicer” pictures?

For more than twenty minutes, Trump railed about “outrageous” and “dishonest” coverage. When he was asked about the sort of “fake news” that now clogs social media, Trump replied that it was the networks that were guilty of spreading fake news. The “worst,” he said, were CNN (“liars!”) and NBC.

This is where we are. The President-elect does not care who knows how unforgiving or vain or distracted he is. This is who he is, and this is who will be running the executive branch of the United States government for four years.

The over-all impression of the meeting from the attendees I spoke with was that Trump showed no signs of having been sobered or changed by his elevation to the country’s highest office. Rather, said one, “He is the same kind of blustering, bluffing blowhard as he was during the campaign.”

Another participant at the meeting said that Trump’s behavior was “totally inappropriate” and “fucking outrageous.” The television people thought that they were being summoned to ask questions; Trump has not held a press conference since late July. Instead, they were subjected to a stream of insults and complaints—and not everyone absorbed it with pleasure.

“I have to tell you, I am emotionally fucking pissed,” another participant said. “How can this not influence coverage? I am being totally honest with you. Toward the end of the campaign, it got to a point where I thought that the coverage was all about [Trump’s] flaws and problems. And that’s legit. But, I thought, O.K., let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. After the meeting today, though—and I am being human with you here—I think, Fuck him! I know I am being emotional about it. And I know I will get over it in a couple of days after Thanksgiving. But I really am offended. This was unprecedented. Outrageous!”

Kellyanne Conway, who managed Trump’s campaign and who is now his senior adviser, said that the meeting had been “very cordial, candid, and honest.”

Participants said that Trump did not seem entirely rational about his criticism of the media, nor did he appear any more informed about policy than he had been during the campaign. When one participant pointed out that all Presidents and Presidential candidates believe they get bad press, Trump said, “Not Obama!”

In fact, Trump went on at length about how much he has come to like the current President—how “great” they are getting along and how he “loves” Obama. He said that since the two met at the White House, two weeks ago, they have spoken twice on the phone. When I interviewed Obama for nearly two hours last week, he was obviously doing his best to avoid insulting or provoking a man whom he had previously declared “unfit” and “uniquely unqualified” for the Presidency. During the President’s trip to Europe and Peru, sources said, one foreign leader after another came to Obama in a mood of shock and alarm, including Angela Merkel, of Germany.

The one topic that seemed to elicit real seriousness from Trump, now that he has been briefed by intelligence officials, attendees said, is the situation in North Korea.

Sitting at a large conference table and flanked by his top aides, including Stephen Bannon, Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, and Conway, Trump also told the attendees that Mitt Romney, who had been an unvarnished critic during the campaign, now “desperately wants” to be Secretary of State under Trump. The two men met at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, over the weekend. It was unclear if Trump was going to give the job to Romney or was, instead, toying with his onetime adversary. People at the session, however, came away believing that Trump was preparing to nominate General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense.

The participants all shook Trump’s hand at the start of the session and congratulated him, but things went south from there. The attendees included around two dozen anchors and executives from CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, and ABC, including Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, Wolf Blitzer, Gayle King, David Muir, and Martha Raddatz. The Trump people did say that they would allow the new President to be followed, as tradition has had it, by a team of pool reporters.

Participants said that Trump did not raise his voice, but that he went on steadily at the start of the meeting about how he had been treated poorly. “It was all so Trump,” one said. “He is like this all the time. He’ll freeze you out and then be nice and humble and sort of want you to like him.”

“But he truly doesn’t seem to understand the First Amendment,” the source continued. “He doesn’t. He thinks we are supposed to say what he says and that’s it.”

I wish I believed that the press would be so appalled that they would redouble their efforts to expose this fascist freak. But I don't. I think they will adjust their coverage in order to maintain access and create a sense of normality.

I hope I'm wrong.

.
digby 11/22/2016 03:30:00 PM

 
Let's call them what they are

by digby

Think Progress editors write:

You can learn everything you need to know about the “alt-right” by looking at the man who popularized its name. Credit goes to Richard Spencer, head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute (NPI), and one of the country’s leading contemporary advocates of ideological racism.

The weekend before Thanksgiving, Spencer keynoted an NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his speech, he approvingly quoted Nazi propaganda, said that the United States is meant to be a “white country,” and suggested that many political commentators are “soulless golem” controlled by Jewish media interests.

That, in a nutshell, is the face of the so-called alt-right. As Spencer himself has said, the core of alt-right ideology is the preservation of “white identity.”

So you might wonder what, if anything, distinguishes the alt-right from more hidebound racist movements such as the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. The answer is very little, except for a bit of savvy branding and a fondness for ironic Twitter memes. Spencer and his ilk are essentially standard-issue white supremacists who discovered a clever way to make themselves appear more innocuous — even a little hip.
A reporter’s job is to describe the world as it is, with clarity and accuracy. Use of the term “alt-right,” by concealing overt racism, makes that job harder.

The ploy worked. News outlets such as CNN and the New York Times, always a little shy when it comes to identifying racism by its true name, have taken to using “alt-right” in headlines instead. The term is flexible enough that Steve Bannon, a top adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, can boast that he turned Breitbart News into “a platform for the alt-right” while simultaneously denying any association with white nationalist movements. Richard Spencer’s marketing campaign has made it possible for leading conservative figures to make common cause with neo-Nazis and Klansmen while dodging any accusations of personal racism.

Spencer and Bannon are of course free to describe themselves however they’d like, but journalists are not obliged to uncritically accept their framing. A reporter’s job is to describe the world as it is, with clarity and accuracy. Use of the term “alt-right,” by concealing overt racism, makes that job harder.

With that in mind, ThinkProgress will no longer treat “alt-right” as an accurate descriptor of either a movement or its members. We will only use the name when quoting others. When appending our own description to men like Spencer and groups like NPI, we will use terms we consider more accurate, such as “white nationalist” or “white supremacist.”

“White nationalist” refers to a specific ideology held by many of those who adopt the “alt-right” label. A white nationalist is someone who believes the United States should be governed by and for white people, and that national policy should radically advance white interests. White supremacists are a broader and more inchoate group, comprised of those who believe in the innate superiority of white people.
We won’t do racists’ public relations work for them.

We will describe people and movements as neo-Nazis only when they identify as such, or adopt important aspects of Nazi rhetoric and iconography.

The point here is not to call people names, but simply to describe them as they are. We won’t do racists’ public relations work for them. Nor should other news outlets.

This makes sense although there is an element of the alt-right that isn't captured solely by the term "white nationalist" or "white supremacist." It's the nasty, trollish, juvenile rhetorical approach that's different. Maybe that doesn't make a difference but these new "white nationalists" are not your grandfather's hooded Klansmen. They are modern and "hip" and they use an entirely different lexicon.

Don't be fooled if you come across these racists and they just seem like a bunch of nasty little boys, somewhat harmless if annoying, That's part of their schtick.

.
digby 11/22/2016 02:00:00 PM

 
L'état, c'est moi

by digby

So, the New York Times live tweeted their meeting with Trump today. I'm sure a full write up will be forthcoming as well.

I'm just putting this out there for you to think about. When asked about his overwhelming conflict of interests, this was his answer:

He has just said "the president can't have a conflict of interest" which is a variant on Richard Nixon's "if the president does it it's not illegal."

There is no law against it. It's "on his side." He has no intention of stopping anything he's doing other than actual check signing, which he says he could continue to do but won't.

Don't worry. He'd like to "do something." He'll get to it eventually. Right now he's busy making America great again.

As of right now, Trump has pretty much said that the business of the Trump Organization is the business of the United States of America. He is the State. The State is him.

Even if the GOP turns on his it won't matter. There are no  Goldwaters, Rhodes' or Scotts who will tell Trump he's lost the support of the Party. And anyway he could not care less if he has the support of the party and is too ignorant to know why it matters. The only way out is impeachment. But the Republicans won't do that either.

I don't know what it would take to make it happen. They didn't care that he's a lying, pussy-grabbing, cretinous, racist sociopath. Why would they care that he blatantly plans to use his office to enrich his family?

.
digby 11/22/2016 12:30:00 PM

 
Thank you sir, may I have another?

by digby

So our dictator-elect is benevolent after all

The government didn't used to work this way, of course.  BT (before Trump) presidents didn't "decide" whether to prosecute their former rivals. But apparently they do now. And when they decide not to do it, those who followed the former rivals are to be grateful and worshipful that he decided to heal the nation rather than doing what he promised to do. Thank you oh benevolent President Trump!

At least that's what they're saying. Rudy Giuliani smirked through an interview in the lobby of Trump tower this morning, saying that he thinks Clinton voters should take another look at Trump now that he's shown his generosity --- by saying he's not going to do something that he never had the authority to do and which law enforcement said wasn't criminal in the first place. 

KellyAnne Conway went further and said Trump wasn't just trying to heal the nation, he was trying to help Hillary Clinton heal:

She is the worst person in the world. And so are all the people who chanted "lock her up" like a bunch of slavering, witch-hunting monsters. It was one of the most sickening displays of a sickening campaign. Trump said he'd put her in jail --- to her face --- in the presidential debate. He gets no moral credit for saying he won't pursue it now.

As someone said to me on twitter, this is classic abuser behavior: "why do you make me hurt you, baby? But hey, I didn't kill you so it's all good, amirite? Now go make me dinner."

I don't think I have ever loathed these people more than I do right now.  And, buhlee me, that's saying something.

.
digby 11/22/2016 11:00:00 AM

 
They knew he was a snake before they took him in ... 

by digby

I wrote about the vain hope the Republican party will save us from Trump for Salon today:

Kellyanne Conway says she's confident Trump isn't doing anything illegal with his businesses because he has lawyers and advisers. pic.twitter.com/Y9uDLiCJ2y

— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) November 21, 2016

That tweet from Donald Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway came in response to questions from the press about all of Trump’s ethical violations since the election. I wrote about a few of them on Monday, but since then it has been reported that Trump had asked about some permitting issues for a Trump project during a call with the president of Argentina (an issue Kurt Eichenwald raised in his investigation of Trump’s conflicts of interest back in September). The Argentine president’s office said the request didn’t happen, but the journalists who reported it are credible and it has since been revealed that Ivanka Trump was on the call, so it was a breach of normal protocol regardless.

Last night the New York Times reported that when Trump met with British politician Nigel Farage he asked for help in opposing wind farms that ruin the view from Trump’s Scottish golf courses. Andy Wigmore, an anti-Brexit media consultant who was present, said they are happy to oblige:


Mr. Wigmore headed communications for Leave.EU, one of the two groups that led the Brexit effort. He said in an email that he and Mr. Banks would be “campaigning against wind farms in England, Scotland and Wales.”

Trump will surely not forget the favor.

These are some of the recent ethical breaches we know about. They are unlikely to be the only ones. The Trump transition has already made it clear that they do not believe the norms that have always applied to previous presidents should apply to him.

The president-elect tweeted this out Monday night:

Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

These issues were obvious during the campaign when Trump refused to release his taxes or otherwise reveal the extent of his holdings. There were dozens of issues — such as his fraudulent charity, the myriad lawsuits, claims of sexual assault, benefits his campaign received from actions against his opponents by hackers and law enforcement — that would almost certainly have destroyed any other candidate.

But the press pretty much ignored this issue throughout the campaign. They are paying attention now, but there is a sense that it’s all just whirling around in the general maelstrom that is the Trump phenomenon. After all, this is a man who has already done everything a politician can do to self-destruct and he just keeps getting stronger. His poll numbers are going up. His supporters are feeling emboldened. Even if the media were to do its job and hold Trump’s feet to the fire, it’s hard to see how it would change him or lower support for him.

So, is Trump stoppable? It’s hard to imagine what it will take. Considering that he has no conscience and the Democrats and press are impotent, the only people with the power to rein him in are the congressional Republicans.

Conservative analyst David Frum said on “Face the Nation” over the weekend that Republicans must “prevent this administration from being devoured and consumed by scandal,” that it must be “Trump-proofed.” He is in favor of Republicans starting small by voting for a bill to be introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., requiring that all presidents and presidential candidates, including the current president-elect, release three years’ worth of tax returns. If they refuse, the IRS will release them. His theory is that the returns will show where all the potential conflicts of interest are and will give Congress a baseline for oversight.


That would, of course, require Congress to perform that oversight and there is almost no evidence that it will. The chair of the House Government and Oversight Committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, has indicated that he is prepared to continue the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email server. But so far, despite a flood of calls from constituents to all members of Congress, he has remained noncommittal on Trump’s obvious violations of ethical norms.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to comment when asked about it by Politico, as did half a dozen other Republicans. If the Senate were to do oversight of Trump’s conflicts it would likely fall to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is led by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, one of the few GOP senators who ran as an unabashed, forthright Trump backer — and won handily. It’s possible that Johnson will be forced into action by one or two of the Republicans on his committee, among them Sen. John McCain, who has expressed extreme disdain for Trump’s promises to bring back torture, and Sen. Rand Paul, who has come out against some of Trump’s hawkish cabinet picks. But taking on Trump’s conflicts of interest seems like a stretch.

There are plenty of GOP ethics lawyers who say that Trump is violating norms and the Constitution, even to the extent that he’s committing impeachable offenses even before he takes office. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent ran down some of the political options that might be taken by Republican officials as well. But again, doing anything about such flagrant violations of ethical practices requires action by a Congress firmly controlled by the Republican Party. And remember, even before Trump came along the GOP was in the grip of a nervous breakdown, with a strong grassroots constituency breathing down the necks of elected officials in Washington the minute they did anything that smacked of apostasy.

Today, that constituency is all-in for Donald Trump. As Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots put it in this piece for Politico:


Our values prevailed in the 2016 general election. We have much to do to see those values become reality in America again. And we couldn’t be happier.

If we’re counting on Republicans to save us from Trump, we’re going to be waiting a good long time.

Trump has never hidden who he was. He bragged about buying off politicians and not paying his taxes. He is known to be a con artist, a cheat and a blatant liar. He never promised to divest himself of the business.

Trump often recited the lyrics to a song by Al Wilson called “The Snake” at his rallies and the last line goes like this: “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.” He was talking about himself.
digby 11/22/2016 09:30:00 AM

 

An audience with the His President-electedness

by Tom Sullivan

The president-elect is not amused with his treatment in the (free) press. He let loose at an off-the-record gaggle of press bigwigs and anchors on Monday. "It was like a f–ing firing squad,” "a total disaster," one source told the New York Post:

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

Press executives thought they would be going to discuss press access. Instead they got a tantrum:

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

A source told Politico the meeting was less intense than the Post account, but added that Trump did complain about unflattering photos NBC used, "'this picture of me,' as he made a face with a double chin." (Per NPR's source, Trump described NBC as the worst.)

Kellyanne Conway, Trump senior adviser, denied Trump had exploded in anger, calling the meeting "excellent" and "unprecedented." “There was no need to mend fences,” Conway told Politico. “It was very cordial, very genial. But it was very candid and very honest. From my own perspective, it’s great to hit the reset button.”

A shame there weren't pies lying around. "Banished, banished, banished" is right around the corner.




Undercover Blue 11/22/2016 06:00:00 AM

Monday, November 21, 2016

 
Look what monsters this monster has unleashed

by digby

This stuff is happening all over the country. It's not being made up. Just random harassment against Muslims, Jews, African Americans, women anyone these people feel like harassing.

The Washington Post reports that Chris Cody, a St. Johns University adjunct professor who speaks Arabic, was taking an Uber ride in Queens this past weekend when his driver started talking about a man in another car who accosted him and yelled racial slurs at him. The driver, who is Muslim, filmed the man’s racist tirade and gave Cody permission to share it with the Post.

“Trump is president, asshole!” the man shouted out at the driver, who is a Muslim man. “So you can kiss your fucking visa goodbye, scumbag. They’ll deport you soon. Don’t worry, you fucking terrorist.”

The man also told the Uber driver that he was a “loser” and a “terrorist” who wasn’t “even from here.” The man then stuck up his middle finger as he drove away.

“I could tell he was upset,” Cody tells the Post. “He didn’t tell me exactly why he decided to take a video. I think he was just so shocked by what happened.”

Even if Trump doesn't unleash the authorities on Muslims if we have a terrorist attacks, Muslims will not be safe in America now that Trump has opened Pandora's box.

.
digby 11/21/2016 05:30:00 PM

 
The Overton Window just blew out again. 

by digby

It's fine for the kids to run the Trump Organization as long as they aren't officially in the White House.

I guess it's too late to educate the public about why Trump's children should not be running a business called the Trump Organization while Trump is running the US:

Most voters say Donald Trump’s children should be involved in running the Trump Organization, not his administration, according to a new Morning Consult/POLITICO poll.

The national survey, conducted from Nov. 16-18, shows that 62 percent of voters say Trump’s children should have a role running their father’s business while he is president. By contrast, nearly six of 10 voters (59 percent) say they should not be closely involved in the Trump administration.

They won't be officially involved in running the Trump administration. But they will be involved in making business deals around the world with the Trump name on them and their daddy will be in a position to know how and where to grease the skids for them. And every foreign leader and businessman will know who to talk to if they need a favor from Trump. He's made sure of that. It's all set.

Sadly,  I am convinced that after a flurry of investigative reports the media will stop following this story with any systematic focus. It will be expensive and unrewarding. And who knows what catastrophes await us that will take up all the oxygen. That's what happened after Bush vs Gore. It could easily happen again.

I think we are officially a kleptocracy, at least under Republican rule. Demcorats as we know, have used email. And that's a bridge too far.

.
digby 11/21/2016 04:00:00 PM

 
Politics and Reality Radio: The Trumpocalypse Is Here: What the Heck Just Happened?

by Joshua Holland

This week, we have a Politics and Reality Radio first: A show with no guests.

Joshua Holland works through how a grifter like Donald Trump became president, and says that we're in for some dark days ahead -- and that Trump's most enthusiastic supporters will experience some of the darkest.



Playlist:
Twisted Sister: "We're Not Gonna Take It"
Buffalo Springfield: "For What It's Worth"
Eminem: "Mosh"
Cultura Profética: "Get up, Stand Up"
Sergio Leone: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"

.
digby 11/21/2016 02:30:00 PM

 
Vicious feral instinct and nothing else

by digby

As you watch the new presidency unfold, remember this interview from last summer:

He said in a series of interviews that he does not need to read extensively because he reaches the right decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”

Trump said he is skeptical of experts because “they can’t see the forest for the trees.” He believes that when he makes decisions, people see that he instinctively knows the right thing to do: “A lot of people said, ‘Man, he was more accurate than guys who have studied it all the time.’ ”

Trump’s approach to understanding complex issues and reaching decisions is not unique in the annals of the presidency. Historians who have studied presidential styles depict a divide between men such as President Obama or presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, who were given to reading extensively ahead of important decisions, and presidents Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who preferred to have issues presented to them in short memos or orally.

“We’ve had good presidents of both styles,” said David Greenberg, a presidency historian at Rutgers University. “There’s a kind of danger when intellectuals and journalists see these presidents who don’t read much and scorn them as being not so swift. There’s some political prejudice there on the part of liberals against these business types who have a different executive style.”

Trump’s approach goes beyond the chief executive manner of Reagan or the younger Bush. “We’ve had presidents who have reveled in their lack of erudition,” said Allan Lichtman, a political historian at American University, citing Warren Harding and Lyndon Johnson as leaders who scoffed at academics and other experts. “But Trump is really something of an outlier with this idea that knowing things is almost a distraction. He doesn’t have a historical anchor, so you see his gut changing on issues from moment to moment.”

One day last month, Trump had a visit from a delegation of prominent executives in the oil, steel and retail industries, and one of the executives told Trump that the Chinese were taking advantage of the United States. “He said, ‘I’d like to send you a report,’ ” Trump recalled. “He said, ‘I’d love to be able to send you’ — oh boy, he’s got a lengthy report, hundreds of pages. . . . I said, ‘Do me a favor: Don’t send me a report. Send me, like, three pages.’ ”

Trump said reading long documents is a waste of time because he absorbs the gist of an issue very quickly. “I’m a very efficient guy,” he said. “Now, I could also do it verbally, which is fine. I’d always rather have — I want it short. There’s no reason to do hundreds of pages because I know exactly what it is.”

Trump is certainly an instinctive guy. he's very good at some things, no doubt about it. He didn't inherit the presidency like he inherited his fortune. He earned it by getting something about the American people that nobody else did.

But being president isn't the same thing at all. Eisenhower, Reagan and Junior Bush all had trusted advisers who knew how the government worked. Trump is hiring people with no experience, radical (and sometimes competing) agendas and questionable motives. And he is a megalomaniac who will have to be coddled into thinking everything is his idea which, considering who he's surrounding himself with, is terrifying.

The man is an imbecile when it comes to knowledge. But he's a highly skilled instinctive demagogue. I can't conceive of a worse combination.

But we knew that didn't we?

.
digby 11/21/2016 12:00:00 PM

 
They vilified Donna Brazile

by digby

.... knowing this stuff was going on. John Amato at Crooks and Liars writes:

Responding to Howard Kurtz' questions about her new book, Megyn Kelly said that TV hosts who supported Trump would collude with Donald beforehand to help give themselves credibility by making believe they were tough on him and called it "play acting."

On Fox News' Media Buzz, Kurtz asked, "Certain TV hosts were in the tank for Donald Trump, you say, to the point where 'they would arrange with Trump in advance to ask him certain critical questions or do certain hits on him so they would appear to have some credibility."

Kelly: "Yeah."

Kurtz: "Are you suggesting they were play acting?

Kelly: "Yes. It was acting."

Kurtz: "It was in more than one network, but you can't tell us who?".

Kelly: "No, because these were off the record conversations that I was privy to that I'm not at liberty to reveal. I'm not allowed to name the names, but trust me. This did happen and its been confirmed to me by more than one television executive."

I seem to remember that conservatives were outraged when they read unconfirmed leaked documents that alleged a Democratic operative gave a debate question to Hillary.

Kelly is verifying that staged interviews were given to Trump by TV anchors.

What does that remind you of?

Not to be forgotten from this interview is that somebody tipped off Trump about Megyn's first question during the debate she was moderating.

Too bad there were no leaked documents about the Trump campaign. I'm sure it's an oversight by Wikileaks. I wonder what we would have found?

Kelly said, "What I write is the day before the debate, he [Trump] had called one of our Fox News executives and said he had heard my first question for him was going to be a very pointed question."

Sean Hannity is fit to be tied!

No idea who @megynkelly is talking about. When I asked ?'s about Justices, The wall, Refugees, Obamacare, economy etc I wanted real answers! https://t.co/AZxax2rpur

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) November 20, 2016

Apparently he thinks he was one of the people to whom she was referring. Imagine that.

She says she's heard that it happened on other networks. I believe it.



.



digby 11/21/2016 10:30:00 AM

 
The President of the United States Brand

by digby

I wrote about Trump doing business out of the White House for Salon today

One of the odder events of 2016’s very odd presidential campaign was Donald Trump’s pilgrimage to an event held by the Republican Hindu Coalition in Edison, New Jersey, during the last weeks of the presidential campaign. It’s not as if he made other forms of outreach to small ethnic or religious minorities, and this appearance seemed particularly obscure for a campaign concentrated on big rallies in battleground states.

Well, we may know the primary reason now. It was revealed over the weekend that the president-elect has been holding Trump Organization business meetings during the transition, and one of his meetings was with Indian developers with whom he has some luxury apartment deals cooking in Mumbai. The New York Times reported:


“We will see a tremendous jump in valuation in terms of the second tower,” said Pranav R. Bhakta, a consultant who helped Mr. Trump’s organization make inroads into the Indian market five years ago. “To say, ‘I have a Trump flat or residence’ — it’s president-elect branded. It’s that recall value. If they didn’t know Trump before, they definitely know him now.”

Somebody close to Trump must understand this isn’t a good look:

Photos of Trump with Real Estate Partners from India are disappearing from view. No worries. We grabbed them. https://t.co/VlcCyldC05 pic.twitter.com/nBdOHXkned

— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) November 20, 2016

Now perhaps people think that simply because Trump has business interests in India, or any of the other countries in which the Trump Organization is involved, that won’t factor into his official decision-making as president. But at least until now our elected officials have been held to a higher standard. They put companies or investments in a blind trust, or sold their businesses and converted their holdings into cash or generic financial investments. The reasons are obvious. Presidents normally strive to be seen as honest by the people who elected them, and also to make it clear to foreign governments that they are not putting their own interests above their country.

Trump has said in the past that he “couldn’t care less” about his business once he’s making America great again, so he will undoubtedly announce at some point that he’s stepping away from his company and letting his children take the reins. As if that made a difference. After this past week, every foreign visitor will know who to talk to about “president-branded” properties: Trump’s kids.

Last week, you’ll recall, he was said to request top-secret clearances for Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner. (Trump later denied this, but the word was already out that the kids are in the inner circle.) They were already official members of the transition team, and Kushner is reportedly being considered for an official role in the White House.

Meetings such as the one Ivanka Trump attended with the Japanese prime minister last week would be noteworthy simply for the inappropriateness of such high-level contact without any formal preparation or supervision. But Ivanka is also an executive vice president of the Trump Organization. Her presence says clearly to all foreign business interests that she is involved at the highest levels, trusted by her father with both the business of the family and business of the United States.

Just as those pictures of Indian businessmen meeting with Trump and the three Trump scions were published and then withdrawn, so too was the picture of Ivanka at the meeting with the Japanese premier. If one were a a cynic one might even think they meant for them to be seen around the world, which they were, before the family was forced to take this operation behind closed doors.


It was also revealed that people who want to work with Trump both as a businessman and a president are staying at his new Washington hotel, spending money freely in an apparent attempt to curry favor with the new president. This story in the Washington Post sounds like something written about a tinpot dictator in a developing country:


Guests at the Trump hotel have begun parking themselves in the lobby, ordering expensive cocktails, hoping to see one of the Trump family members or the latest Cabinet pick. One foreign official hoped Trump, famous for the personal interest he takes in his businesses, might check the guest logs himself. But several expressed concern that spending thousands of dollars on a Trump property could look like an attempt to buy access or favors.

Trump apparently has no such concerns. He’s been holding his transition meetings at the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey, in what the New York Times called a “Trump-branded, made-for-television spectacle.” All that’s missing is an 800 number at the bottom of the screen so foreign dignitaries and business interests can make their reservations.

The Trump brand is clearly worth a lot more money than it was worth two weeks ago. It’s now the “President of the United States” brand, and Trump and his family are poised to cash in handsomely along with their foreign partners. There are no laws against a president running his international business from the Oval Office, mainly because nobody ever thought a president would so blatantly use the office for personal gain.

The Times quoted ethics lawyers on the subject, who sounded stunned by what they are seeing: “It is unprecedented in modern history,” said Andrew D. Herman, a lawyer who has represented more than a dozen members of Congress in ethics cases. “But this is the new normal.”

I wrote quite a bit during the campaign about Trump’s obvious conflicts of interest, and was surprised that the press never seemed very interested in the subject, particularly since they reported obsessively on Hillary Clinton’s past association with her family’s global charitable foundation while she served as secretary of state.

Since Trump is making absolutely no effort to hide his intentions, the mainstream media is finally paying some attention to this unprecedented transgression of ethical norms. The problem is there’s nothing to be done about it now, not really. The press can keep the spotlight on apparent efforts to influence other people, but Trump goes his own way and there’s little reason to believe he will recognize that he’s committing an ethical breach of massive proportions. Or that he would care if he did.

We can’t say he didn’t warn us. In 2000, Trump told Fortune, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” We don’t know how rich Trump really is right now, of course, but we can be pretty sure that he and his family will be a whole lot richer at the end of his term.

Update: I have been apoplectic about this  throughout the campaign especially as I saw the media grinding Clinton to dust over ethics. I knew it would be bad. I had no idea they would be this blatant. But it makes sense. They are putting out the word that the Oval Office is open for business. Promotion is important. They'll take it behind closed doors eventually but the damage will have been done.

Update II: Jesus Christ

For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements. 

According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project. 

This comes from one of Argentina's most prominent journalists, Jorge Lanata, in a recent TV appearance. Lanata is quoted here in La Nacion, one of Argentina's most prestigious dailies. Said Lanata: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat." 

(For Spanish speakers, here's the original Spanish we've translated: "Macri llo llamó. Todavía no se contó pero Trump le pidió que autorizaran un edificio que él está construyendo en Buenos Aires, no fue solo una charla geo política.") 

Separately, Trump's business partner on the project, Felipe Yaryura, was there on election night at the Trump celebration in New York City.
Why aren't we hearing about this in the American press? 

Well, remember, no one knew anything about the visit from Trump's Indian business partners until it appeared in the Indian press either. It seems like this is likely happening on many fronts. It's just being hidden from the American press. We only hear about it when it bubbles to the surface in the countries where Trump is pushing his business deals.

digby 11/21/2016 09:00:00 AM

 

Granny's headed for the cliff again

by Tom Sullivan

There are a lot of fights ahead. Josh Marshall lays out just why the fight to save (and expand) Medicare may be the key to all our futures:

There are numerous fronts where Democrats will need to resist Trump and the Republican Congress. But to be really effective anywhere they will need to chalk up wins somewhere because all political power is unitary. A president can't suffer a deflating defeat in one area without it eroding his power in others. Victories operate in the same way. Power gained or lost in one sphere translates into every other.

Stopping Republicans on Medicare Phaseout will reduce their ability to push their damaging agenda on other fronts.

The final point should be the most obvious. Donald Trump won the presidency promising to defend the economic interests of ordinary people from the 'crooked' elite on Wall Street and in Washington. Whether or not he believes or believed that he has rapidly allied himself with the Paul Ryan privatizers who want to eviscerate the federal programs which are the bedrock of the American middle class. Social Security and Medicare are at the top of that list. If you look at the faces in the crowds at Trump's most poisonous speeches I guarantee that you that very few of those people thought they were voting to lose their Medicare.

Getting rid of or gutting Medicare is incredibly unpopular. It can only be accomplished by a mixture of bamboozlement, scare tactics and unified party government which will allow the GOP to push the change through regardless of public opinion. Saving Medicare or giving everything in the effort to do so is a tailor-made way for Democrats to cut across the Trump-Clinton divide and undermine the idea that Trump or the GOP have the interests of the middle class or really anyone but libertarians and the extremely wealthy at heart.

Medicare saved my parents' home and life savings when my mother fell ill and needed emergency surgery and many weeks in the hospital. Randian Rep. Paul Ryan would have left them to the tender mercies of insurance actuaries. Like a healthcare Terminator, he's back.

This country just voted for a presidential version of Brexit. The harsh reality of that will sink in as soon as Ryan dismantles Medicare and replaces it with subsidized private insurance, and he aims to do it as soon as Trump takes over and before any opposition can build.

Trump voters better wise up. They don't know it yet, but granny is THEM.




Undercover Blue 11/21/2016 06:00:00 AM