Hullabaloo

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Trump's most important advisers on the Mueller testimony

by digby

Transcript via Media Matters:

BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): One thing is pretty clear. They're going to ask Robert Mueller, too, how did it make you feel when Donald Trump -- president of the United States said that you're compromised, or how did it make you feel when the president of the United States kept attacking the process? What did you think about the rumors that he was going to fire you? And I'm not sure he's going to answer that either. The other thing I have a sense of, he's got until July 17 to bone up on it. I don't think he knows the details of the report. I don't think -- he was like --

STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): He'd better, his name's on it.

KILMEADE: But he's like the king of England on this. He assigns the people, they're going to say why are most of them Democratically affiliated. Aren't you concerned about the perception if you hire people like that to do this job? Do you feel why some feel there was an agenda in there? So, [Rep.] Jerry Nadler [(D-NY)], if you ever watch him in these hearings, they often get out of control. I sense that this ping-pong could go the other direction.

DOOCY: Mueller's a smart guy.

JEDEDIAH BILA (GUEST CO-HOST): If he doesn't know it now I'm pretty sure he's sitting with a highlighter going over it, because he's going to want to make this his moment.

Projection 101.

Via Steve Benen:

[T]he president sat down with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos the same day and insisted he had read the Mueller report.

In context, the anchor, speaking with Trump inside the presidential limousine, asked the Republican about his “pitch to the swing voter on the fence.” Trump quickly turned to the Mueller report, his “no collusion” claim, and his perception that voters “are angry about it.” Stephanopoulos began to correct him, but said the two could discuss it in more detail later.

But the president pressed on, again insisting that the special counsel’s findings concluded “no collusion,” and “they didn’t find anything having to do with obstruction.” The ABC host explained, “They didn’t examine collusion. He laid out evidence of obstruction.”

This exchange soon followed:

TRUMP: He said no collusion.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He said he didn’t look at collusion.

TRUMP: George, the report said no collusion.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you read the report?

TRUMP: Uh, yes I did, and you should read it, too.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I read every word.

TRUMP: Alright, let’s go. You should read it, too, George.

At that point, the president decided it was time to leave the car.

Of course he didn't read it. He doesn't read.

.

digby 6/26/2019 05:00:00 PM

Debate night: everybody start your livers!

by digby

As we anticipate the first Democratic debate, here are excerpts of three interesting profiles of the top three candidates on the stage tonight.

O'Rourke:

A narrow loss in a 2018 Texas Senate race made Beto O’Rourke a political star. He decided to try to ride that stardom all the way to the White House as a fresh face who combines charisma and an outsider persona with a fairly conventional Democratic policy agenda.

But while Beto’s campaign seemed almost painfully meta — he’s the guy who party professionals thought seemed like the kind of guy who voters would like — he’s running on a substantive agenda that in some ways comes the closest to representing the polar opposite of Trumpism.

He’s a NAFTA supporter and a longtime resident of a majority-Latinx border city who’s enthusiastic about immigration. His immigration platform commits him to going further than Trump or Obama in aggressively deploying executive power — protecting not only Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients but also their parents from deportation. He also calls for legislation that would dramatically expand a number of categories of immigration, from refugees to family unification to high-skilled workers.

He has also tried to fight his reputation as an ally of the fossil fuel industry (oil and gas are big in his home state of Texas) by becoming the first 2020 Democrat to release a climate change plan. He’s calling for $5 trillion in new investment and focusing tightly on ways existing law can allow a president to impose regulations that limit emissions.

But it’s really O’Rourke’s fulsome embrace of a politics of cosmopolitanism that makes him stand out from the rest of the field. While Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren try to out-protectionist Trump and Joe Biden casts himself as an electability champion ready to win back the Rust Belt, Beto is the candidate of a hypothetical future Democratic Party that wins elections in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona powered by voters in the fast-growing suburbs of Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

Warren:

Elizabeth Warren has a story she wants you to hear. She told it over and over across the state of Iowa on Memorial Day weekend. You could find the repetition a sign that she’s on autopilot, but in person, the opposite effect comes across: that this story is so important that she can’t afford to get a detail wrong. Her approach is chock-full of policy, sure; “I’ve got a plan for that” has become a rallying cry. Her flurry of proposals—for a wealth tax that would fund free public college and universal child care and pre-K, for a “Green Marshall Plan,” for canceling student debt, and for fighting the opioid crisis—is earning her headlines and driving her recent success with voters. In a national Economist/YouGov poll in mid-June, she grabbed second place in the Democratic primary field, behind former vice president Joe Biden and ahead of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In a Monmouth poll of Nevada, the third state to vote in the Democratic primaries next year, she also climbed to second place, and in the latest Des Moines Register/CNN poll for Iowa, she was effectively tied with Sanders for second place. No doubt she’s helped by having the largest staff of all the Democrats; she has more than 50 people on the ground in Iowa, where I watched six meticulously executed events.

Booker:

There have been breakout sensations, profound disappointments and examples of gritty resilience in the Democratic primary, but no candidate to date has been as simply confounding as the New Jersey senator, who has been sized up as presidential timber since he entered politics two decades ago. And few other contenders are under as much pressure to distinguish themselves at this debate, and the one next month, as he is.

Mr. Booker is more comfortable “leading with love,” as he often says in speeches, and he warns against “fighting fire with fire” when it comes to confronting President Trump.

It’s an approach that could pay off with Democratic primary voters, who surveys indicate are far more eager to find a candidate who wants to unite the country than merely fight against Republicans.

But it does not make for cable television or social media catnip, which has shaped the early contours of the race.

“It’s the opposite of viral,” said Jeff Link, a longtime Iowa Democratic strategist. “His message is totally different.”

This strategy has so far obscured Mr. Booker’s considerable attributes. He is a gifted orator, has a glittering résumé and enjoys longstanding ties to some of the most deep-pocketed donors in his party, yet he is stagnant so far in the polls. No other Democratic candidate but him has such a sophisticated organization and support network in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina but is mired closer to zero than double digits in most every early nominating state.

Mr. Booker said he was not discouraged. “People who are usually polling this far down don’t succeed in winning the nomination but I think we’re going to do it,” he said in an interview Saturday, adding: “When people hear my message they convert.”

digby 6/26/2019 03:30:00 PM

More grotesque human rights violations at the border

by digby

Buzzfeed with new information:

When Department of Homeland Security inspectors visited several border facilities in the Rio Grande Valley earlier this month, they found adults and minors with no access to showers, many adults only fed bologna sandwiches, and detainees banging on cell windows — desperately pressing notes to the windows of their cells that detailed their time in custody.

The inspectors compiled a draft report, obtained by BuzzFeed News, that described the conditions as dangerous and prolonged. Some adults were held in standing room–only conditions for a week. There was little access to hot showers or hot food for families and children in some facilities. Some kids were being held in closed cells. There was severe overcrowding.

The draft report was written by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General and addressed to the acting DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan. It comes after inspectors visited five border facilities and two ports of entry during the week of June 10.

It appears to have been sent to DHS officials last week for comments and requests for redactions before being released publicly.

“Specifically, we are recommending that the Department of Homeland Security take immediate steps to alleviate dangerous overcrowding and prolonged detention of children and adults in the Rio Grande Valley,” wrote Jennifer Costello, acting inspector general.

The review comes amid intensifying pressure aimed at DHS and US Customs and Border Protection officials after attorneys visited facilities and described rapidly deteriorating conditions, especially for children, as CBP struggles to cope with record levels of families and children crossing the border. The report itself makes a point to note that the Rio Grande Valley has seen a massive increase in families and children crossing the border over the past year and has the highest volume on the southwest border.

In a press call with reporters Tuesday, CBP officials pushed back against the claims made by the attorneys of the alleged filthy conditions for children at one facility near El Paso.

At three of the facilities in the Rio Grande Valley, unaccompanied minors and families had no access to showers, and children had only a limited change of clothes. At two facilities, children and families did not have hot meals until the week the inspectors arrived. The inspectors documented that the children were provided juice, formula, diapers, wipes, and snacks.

The inspectors said the overcrowding and prolonged detention for the single adults represented a security risk for detainees, agents, and officers. Adults purposely clogged toilets with Mylar blankets and socks in order to be released from their cells, while some refused to return to cells after they had been cleaned. Others tried to escape.

The inspectors reviewed Border Patrol data that revealed children were being held for long periods of time. The data showed that 826 of the 2,669 children held at the border facilities were in custody longer than the 72 hours mandated by court orders.

At the centralized processing center in McAllen, Texas, 165 unaccompanied children had been in detention for longer than a week as they awaited to be sent to shelters that care for immigrant kids. More than 50 of them were younger than 7 years old, and some of them had waited more than two weeks in border facilities.

The report noted that agents had tried to provide the least-restrictive setting possible for children, but “the limited space for medical isolation resulted in some [unaccompanied children] and families being held in closed cells.” (Last month, following the death of a 16-year-old boy in Border Patrol custody who had been diagnosed with the flu, many immigrants were quarantined.)

The dire conditions were not limited to families and minors.

Most single adults had not showered for nearly a month while in CBP custody, the report said. Instead, wet wipes were handed out to maintain hygiene. Many single adults were being fed only bologna sandwiches, leading to some having medical issues like constipation. In one facility, officials found some single adults in standing room–only conditions for a week while others were held in overcrowded cells for more than a month.

At one facility, officials ended their visit early because they were agitating the situation.

“Specifically, when detainees observed us, they banged on the cell windows, shouted, pressed notes to the window with their time in custody, and gestured to evidence of their time in custody (e.g. beards),” the report read.

Read the whole thing. But get prepared. You will be very, very angry when you finish.

.

digby 6/26/2019 02:00:00 PM

Rogue Superpower threatening nuclear war? That's what it sounds like

by digby

Yesterday:

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Tuesday to obliterate parts of Iran if it attacked “anything American,” in a new war of words with Iran which condemned fresh U.S. sanctions on Tehran as “mentally retarded.”

Today

President Trump said Wednesday that a war with Iran would not “last very long” or involve ground troops, as he seemingly dismissed warnings that limited U.S. military action could spiral into a larger conflict.

Trump reiterated his desire to avoid a war but said “we’re in a very strong position if something should happen.”

“It wouldn’t last very long, I can tell you that,” he said during a wide-ranging interview on Fox Business.

“I’m not talking boots on the ground,” Trump added. “I’m not talking, we’re going to send a million soldiers. I’m just saying if something would happen, it wouldn’t last very long.”

Trump also pointed to his decision last week to call off a military strike after Iran shot down a U.S. surveillance drone.

“I’ve been very nice to them,” he said. “They shot down our drone. I decided not to kill a lot of Iranians. I know a lot of Iranians. I like Iranians so much, and that plays into your decision, too. They’re human beings. They’re people. I didn’t want to kill 150 people.”

His comments come amid increasing tensions between the two countries and personal insults between Trump and Iranian leaders. They also come as some U.S. officials and national security experts warn that an administration can never be sure that a military action will not rapidly expand into a new war.

While military analysts assess that the United States would beat Iran in an all-out clash, Tehran possesses ballistic and cruise missiles, air defenses and proxy forces that could kill U.S. troops.

Jim Stavridis, a retired admiral, said Iran also has “exceptionally strong” asymmetric warfare capability, in which a belligerent in a conflict stands up to an opponent with greater abilities.

“Cyber, swarm small-boat tactics, diesel submarines, special forces and surface-to-surface cruise missiles are all high-level assets,” Stavridis recently told The Washington Post. “They are also very experienced at employing them in the demanding environment of the Middle East. They would pose a formidable challenge to U.S. forces, although we would ultimately prevail in any confrontation of course.”
[...]
In recent days, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has described the White House as “mentally crippled” and denounced new sanctions against Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as “outrageous and idiotic.”

Trump on Tuesday called Rouhani’s comments “ignorant” and said that Iran does “not understand reality.” Any attack on “anything American,” tweeted the president, will bring “overwhelming” U.S. force and “obliteration” of some Iranian assets.

During Wednesday’s interview, Trump said he doesn’t think that Iran has “smart leadership at all.”

“Iran’s going down the tubes,” he said.

That's very useful. Earlier today he also called the Iranian leadership selfish and stupid.

Let's just hope that this exchange of personal insults serves to let the air out of this confrontation instead of escalating it.

It's playground bullying with millions of lives at stake so it's just crazy. But it's all we've got.

.

digby 6/26/2019 12:30:00 PM

Trump's legacy

by digby

Following up on Tom's post below, I wanted to post the picture for posterity. NYT:

MEXICO CITY — The father and daughter lie face down in the muddy water along the banks of the Rio Grande, her tiny head tucked inside his T-shirt, an arm draped over his neck.

The portrait of desperation was captured on Monday by the journalist Julia Le Duc, in the hours after Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez died with his 23-month-old daughter, Valeria, as they tried to cross from Mexico to the United States.

The image represents a poignant distillation of the perilous journey migrants face on their passage north to the United States, and the tragic consequences that often go unseen in the loud and caustic debate over border policy.

It recalled other powerful and sometimes disturbing photos that have galvanized public attention to the horrors of war and the acute suffering of individual refugees and migrants — personal stories that are often obscured by larger events.

Like the iconic photo of a bleeding Syrian child pulled from the rubble in Aleppo after an airstrike or the 1993 shot of a starving toddler and a nearby vulture in Sudan, the image of a single father and his young child washed up on the Rio Grande’s shore had the potential to prick the public conscience.

As the photo ricocheted around social media on Tuesday, Democrats in the House were moving toward approval of an emergency $4.5 billion humanitarian aid bill to address the plight of migrants at the border.

Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas and the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus, grew visibly emotional as he discussed the photograph in Washington. He said he hoped that it would make a difference among lawmakers and the broader American public.

“It’s very hard to see that photograph,” Mr. Castro said. “It’s our version of the Syrian photograph — of the 3-year-old boy on the beach, dead. That’s what it is.’’

The young family from El Salvador — Mr. Martínez, 25, Valeria and her mother, Tania Vanessa Ávalos — arrived last weekend in the border city of Matamoros, Mexico, hoping to apply for asylum in the United States.

But the international bridge was closed until Monday, officials told them, and as they walked along the banks of the river, the water appeared manageable.

The family set off together around mid-afternoon on Sunday. Mr. Martínez swam with Valeria on his back, tucked under his shirt. Ms. Ávalos followed behind, on the back of a family friend, she told government officials.

But as Mr. Martínez approached the opposite bank, carrying Valeria, Ms. Ávalos could see he was tiring in the rough water. She decided to swim back to the Mexican bank.

Back on the Mexico side, she turned and saw her husband and daughter, close to the American bank, sink into the river and get swept away.

On Monday, their bodies were recovered by Mexican authorities a few hundred yards from where they were swept downstream, fixed in the same haunting embrace.

Hullabaloo

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Monday, June 24, 2019