March For Our Lives in Pittsfield, MA on Saturday, 24 March 2018

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 23 March 2018, Day 428:

 

Trump Signs Spending Bill, Reversing Veto Threat and Avoiding Government Shutdown, The New York Times, Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear, Friday, 23 March 2018: “President Trump, hours after threatening to veto a $1.3 trillion spending bill and throwing the capital into turmoil, signed it into law on Friday, yielding to advisers and Republican leaders who urged him against manufacturing a government shutdown crisis. Even as he signed the bill, the president seethed about being forced to swallow legislation that broadly repudiated an agenda that once foresaw the reshaping of the federal government into his ‘America First’ image…. His stated reason was its lack of funding for his promised border wall, but that was only one disappointment for the president in a measure that blocked the hiring of thousands of new border patrol agents; stopped deep cuts to foreign aid, the diplomatic corps and environmental programs; thwarted a push to fund vouchers for private and parochial schools; and even rescued the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.” See also, Here’s Some of What’s in the Budget Bill, Politico, Michael Grunwald, Friday, 23 March 2018: “Donald Trump’s budget proposals have taken a hatchet to President Barack Obama’s top priorities. They’ve called for deep cuts in renewable energy, medical research and nonmilitary spending in general. They’ve eliminated TIGER, a grant program for innovative transportation projects created by Obama’s stimulus bill; ARPA-E, an energy research agency launched by the stimulus; and CDBG, a community development program many Republicans consider an urban slush fund. Now the Republicans who control Congress have passed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, and it not only protects Obama’s priorities, it expands them. It does far less for Trump’s stated priorities, and while his administration endorsed the bill Thursday, he tweeted a veto threat and expressed some apparent buyer’s remorse Friday after it passed.”

Two very modest gun reform measures Congress just passed, and 4 measures Congress probably won’t pass anytime soon, The Washington Post, Amber Phillips, Friday, 23 March 2018: “For the first time in recent history, a Republican-controlled Washington did something to limit people’s use of guns. Two things, actually. Or you could look at it another way: The gun-related legislation attached to a spending bill that President Trump signed into law Friday is so modest that it merely reinforces existing law.” See also, Before the March For Our Lives, a Bit of Good News on Gun Reform, The New Yorker, John Cassidy, Friday, 23 March 2018: “As schoolkids and adults from all over America descend on Washington for the March for Our Lives, on Saturday, is it utopian to suggest that, finally, something may be changing on gun control? Donald Trump, after pledging to support ‘comprehensive’ legislation, in the immediate aftermath of the Parkland massacre, backed off after the National Rifle Association paid a visit to the White House. Congress’s only meaningful action since Parkland has been to attach a version of the bipartisan ‘Fix NICS’ bill, which would slightly strengthen the background-check system, to a big spending bill that passed the House and Senate this week. Things may not end there, however. On Thursday, Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson, of Florida—a Republican and a Democrat—joined with Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, of Rhode Island, to introduce a bill that would make it possible for police and family members to obtain so-called risk-protection orders from a court to confiscate the guns of individuals who are potentially dangerous. ‘I think, among the things that we could do after Parkland, one of the most effective is a gun-violence restraining order,’ Rubio said in a statement. The senators’ proposal largely mimics a so-called red-flag provision that the Florida legislature passed earlier this month, and which Florida law-enforcement authorities are already using against people they regard as potential threats, including Zachary Cruz, the younger brother of the Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz.” See also, Justice Department Proposes Banning Bump Stocks, Setting Aside Its Own Recommendations, The New York Times, Katie Benner, Friday, 23 March 2018: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department was proposing to ban so-called bump stocks through regulations rather than wait for Congress to act, a move that defies recommendations by federal law enforcement officials and could subject the department to litigation from gun rights groups…. The Justice Department’s proposed rule ‘would define “machine gun” to include bump-stock-type devices under federal law — effectively banning them,’ Mr. Sessions said in a statement. The proposed bump stock ban would defy the conclusion of Justice Department officials who have said that they could not, under existing law, stop the sales of bump stocks, accessories that allow semiautomatic guns to mimic automatic fire, and that congressional action was needed to ban them. But Mr. Sessions said the department had worked around those concerns.”

John (‘Bomb Iran’) Bolton, the New Warmonger in the White House, The New Yorker, Robin Wright, Friday, 23 March 2018: “Hawks are closing in on the White House. John Bolton, arguably the most abrasive American diplomat of the twenty-first century, will soon assume the top foreign-policy job at the National Security Council…. A former U.N. Ambassador currently best known as a Fox News pundit, Bolton has advocated far harder positions than Trump, including bombing campaigns, wars, and regime change. The late-day news flash sent chills across Washington, even among some Republicans. With Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, due to take over from the ousted Rex Tillerson at the State Department, the team deciding American actions across the globe will now be weighted by hard-liners and war advocates. Defense Secretary James Mattis, a retired marine general, is the most pragmatic policymaker left. What an irony.” See also, Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous, The New York Times, The Editorial Board, Friday, 23 March 2018: “There are few people more likely than Mr. Bolton is to lead the country into war. His selection is a decision that is as alarming as any Mr. Trump has made. His selection, along with the nomination of the hard-line C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, as secretary of state, shows the degree to which Mr. Trump is indulging his worst nationalistic instincts. Mr. Bolton, in particular, believes the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law, treaties or the political commitments of previous administrations…. The national security adviser is the person who makes sure the president hears the views of all the national security agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, and who drives policy toward a decision. It is hard to see Mr. Bolton acting as an honest broker.” See also, John Bolton’s extremism could lead the country to catastrophe, The Washington Post, Editorial Board, Friday, 23 March 2018: “The President’s national security adviser is meant to coordinate policy formation inside the administration, manage disagreements among agencies and tee up important decisions, while separately advising the president of his or her own views. John Bolton, whom President Trump has said will take over the position next month, is unsuited for that role. His record is that of a rigid, bombastic ideologue with a history of bullying colleagues and twisting intelligence. His advocacy of extreme policies, including preventive war against North Korea and Iran, could lead Mr. Trump and the country to catastrophe.” See also, John Bolton Was an Early Beneficiary of Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook Data, The New York Times, Matthew Rosenberg, Friday, 23 March 2018: “The political action committee founded by John R. Bolton, President Trump’s incoming national security adviser, was one of the earliest customers of Cambridge Analytica, which it hired specifically to develop psychological profiles of voters with data harvested from tens of millions of Facebook profiles, according to former Cambridge employees and company documents. Mr. Bolton’s political committee, known as The John Bolton Super PAC, first hired Cambridge in August 2014, months after the political data firm was founded and while it was still harvesting the Facebook data.”

Continue reading Week 62, Friday, 23 March – Thursday, 29 March 2018 (Days 428-434)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 16 March 2018, Day 421:

 

C.I.A. Takes Lead Role in Trump’s North Korea Talks, The New York Times, Mark Landler, Friday, 16 March 2018: “The Central Intelligence Agency has emerged as the primary player in President Trump’s audacious diplomatic opening to North Korea, several officials said on Friday, conducting back-channel communications and taking a major role in planning Mr. Trump’s coming meeting with Kim Jong-un, the country’s ruler. The White House’s decision to use intelligence, rather than diplomatic, channels in communicating with the North Koreans speaks to the influence of Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director whom Mr. Trump chose this week to replace Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson. It also reflects the State Department’s diminished role in preparing for the riskiest encounter between an American president and a foreign leader in many years. Mr. Pompeo, these officials said, has already been dealing with North Korean representatives through a channel that runs between the C.I.A. and its North Korean counterpart, the Reconnaissance General Bureau. And he has been in close touch with the director of South Korea’s National Intelligence Service, Suh Hoon, who American officials said brokered Mr. Kim’s invitation to Mr. Trump. The deep involvement of Mr. Pompeo, officials said, helps explain the timing of Mr. Tillerson’s ouster. Mr. Trump, having decided to accept Mr. Kim’s invitation to a meeting, wanted to have a secretary of state who was in lock step with his views, these people said.”

Facebook suspends the Trump-affiliated data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica after learning it failed to delete data it took inappropriately from users of Facebook, The Washington Post, Elizabeth Dwoskin, Friday, 16 March 2018: “Facebook is suspending the Trump-affiliated data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica, after learning that it failed to delete data that it had taken inappropriately from users of the social network, Facebook said late Friday. Facebook said it was suspending the accounts of Strategic Communication Laboratories, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, as well as the accounts of University of Cambridge psychologist Aleksandr Kogan and Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies. Cambridge Analytica, a firm that specializes in using online data to create voter personality profiles in order to target users with political messages, ran data operations for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The company was funded by Trump supporter and hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and the president’s former senior adviser Stephen K. Bannon once sat on its board. The company, which began working for the Trump campaign in June 2016, promised that its so-called ‘psychographic’ profiles could predict the personality and political leanings of every adult in the United States. The analytics firm was asked in December to turn over internal documents to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as part of the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.”

Andrew McCabe, Former F.B.I. Deputy Director and Target of Trump’s F.B.I. Scorn, Is Fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, Friday, 16 March 2018: “Andrew G. McCabe, the former F.B.I. deputy director and a frequent target of President Trump’s scorn, was fired Friday after Attorney General Jeff Sessions rejected an appeal that would have let him retire this weekend. Mr. McCabe promptly declared that his firing, and Mr. Trump’s persistent needling, were intended to undermine the special counsel’s investigation in which he is a potential witness. Mr. McCabe is accused in a yet-to-be-released internal report of failing to be forthcoming about a conversation he authorized between F.B.I. officials and a journalist. In a statement released late Friday, Mr. Sessions said that Mr. McCabe had shown a lack of candor under oath on multiple occasions…. In an interview, Mr. McCabe was blunt. ‘The idea that I was dishonest is just wrong,’ he said, adding, ‘This is part of an effort to discredit me as a witness.’ F.B.I. disciplinary officials recommended his dismissal. Mr. McCabe, who stepped down in January and took a leave of absence, denied the accusation and appealed this week to senior career officials in the Justice Department. Lack of candor is a fireable offense at the F.B.I., but Mr. McCabe’s last-minute dismissal was carried out against a highly politicized backdrop.” See also, Andrew McCabe’s Firing: Here’s What We Know, The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo, published on Monday, 19 March 2018.

Continue reading Week 61, Friday, 16 March – Thursday, 22 March 2018 (Days 421-427)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 9 March 2018, Day 413:

 

Florida Governor Rick Scott Signs Gun Limits Into Law, Breaking With the National Rifle Association, The New York Times, Patricia Mazzei, Friday, 9 March 2018: “Florida’s nickname has long been the ‘Gunshine State’ because of its plethora of firearms and loose gun restrictions. Then a troubled teenager stormed into a South Florida high school and shot 17 people dead. On Friday, in a dramatic turnaround in one of the most gun-friendly states in America, Gov. Rick Scott signed into law an array of gun limits that included raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21 and extending the waiting period to three days. It was the most aggressive action on gun control taken in the state in decades and the first time Mr. Scott, who had an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association, had broken so significantly from the group. The sweeping and bipartisan law is named after Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where a former student, Nikolas Cruz, was charged with launching the massacre on Feb. 14. The law imposes new restrictions on firearm purchases and the possession of “bump stocks,” funds more school police officers and mental health services, broadens law enforcement’s power to seize weapons, and allows certain staff members to carry guns in schools…. Outside of Tallahassee, the law might not look that groundbreaking: It does not go as far as laws enacted by other more Democratic-leaning states after deadly shootings. Connecticut expanded a ban on assault weapons, prohibited the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and imposed stricter background checks on gun purchases after 20 children and six educators were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012. Colorado required background checks for private gun sales and limited magazines after 12 people were killed at a movie theater in 2012.” See also, Florida Governor Rick Scott breaks with the NRA to sign new gun regulations, The Washington Post, Michael Scherer, Friday, 9 March 2018.

Planning Begins for Trump’s Meeting with North Korea’s Leader Kim Jong-un, a Meeting Some Trump Aides Believe Will Never Happen, The New York Times, Mark Landler, Friday, 9 March 2018: “A day after President Trump accepted an invitation to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea, the White House began planning on Friday a high-level diplomatic encounter so risky and seemingly far-fetched that some of Mr. Trump’s aides believe it will never happen…. [S]everal officials said Friday that the United States still needed to establish direct contact with North Korea to verify the message from Mr. Kim that was conveyed by South Korean envoys to Mr. Trump on Thursday. They warned that Mr. Kim could change his mind or break the promises he made about halting nuclear and missile tests during talks. ‘The United States has made zero concessions, but North Korea has made some promises,’ said the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. ‘This meeting won’t take place without concrete actions that match the promises that have been made by North Korea.’ The White House later clarified that Ms. Sanders was not adding new preconditions to the meeting, but merely emphasizing the consequences if Mr. Kim conducted tests or interfered with joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea that are scheduled to begin at the end of March.” See also, White House says Trump-Kim meeting is contingent on ‘concrete, verifiable actions’ by North Korea, The Washington Post, Anne Gearan, Friday, 9 March 2018.

Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen used his Trump Organization email when arranging to transfer money into an account at a Manhattan bank before he wired $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence, NBC News, Sarah Fitzpatrick and Tracy Connor, Friday, 9 March 2018: “President Donald Trump’s personal attorney used his Trump Organization email while arranging to transfer money into an account at a Manhattan bank before he wired $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels to buy her silence. The lawyer, Michael Cohen, also regularly used the same email account during 2016 negotiations with the actress — whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford — before she signed a nondisclosure agreement, a source familiar with the discussions told NBC News. And Clifford’s attorney at the time addressed correspondence to Cohen in his capacity at the Trump Organization and as ‘Special Counsel to Donald J. Trump,’ the source said. Cohen has tried to put distance between the president and the payout — which has been the subject of campaign finance complaints and an inquiry on Friday afternoon from congressional Democrats, who said in a letter to Cohen that the situation may put Trump at risk of blackmail attempts…. But an email uncovered in the last 24 hours and provided to NBC News by Clifford’s current attorney, Michael Avenatti, shows First Republic Bank and Cohen communicated about the money using his Trump company email address, not his personal gmail account.” See also, New evidence the Stormy Daniels payment may have violated federal election law, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 9 March 2018. See also, Trump’s outside legal team adds New York attorney Lawrence S. Rosen to fight porn star Stormy Daniels, ABC News, Matthew Mosk and Katherine Faulders, published on Thursday, 8 March 2018: “President Donald Trump has added yet another lawyer in his outside legal team -– New York attorney Lawrence S. Rosen, multiple sources tell ABC News. Rosen has been brought in by Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to handle the legal issues surrounding the so-called ‘hush’ agreement that Cohen negotiated with the adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels, according to three people familiar with the arrangement. Rosen, a partner in the firm LaRocca, Hornick, Rosen, Greenberg & Blaha, is a ‘pit bull’ who will ‘aggressively fight and use his rhetorical and writing skills to get you a win,’ according to the firm’s website. The firm is based out of The Trump Building on Wall Street in Manhattan’s financial district.” See also, The President and the Porn Star: A Story’s Slow Rise Above the Din, The New York Times, Matt Flegenheimer, Friday, 9 March 2018: “If a porn-tinged hush payment falls in a news din already torqued to maximum volume, does it make a sound? It seems to be getting there, despite North Korean intervention. And this much is becoming clear: There is no hiding from the tale of the president and the porn star…. Comeuppance is a complicated subject in this presidency. Here is a leader who crowds out scandal with more scandal, who tends to insist that the buck stops elsewhere, who boasted of sexual assault on tape and got to the White House anyway. It is not quite that nothing sticks to Mr. Trump; it is that so much sticks that nothing stays visible for very long.”

Continue reading Week 60, Friday, 9 March – Thursday, 15 March 2018 (Days 414-420)

[Read more…]

›

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 2 March 2018, Day 407:

 

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, Threatens to Retaliate With Tariffs on Bourbon and Bluejeans if Trump Places Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum Imports, The New York Times, Melissa Eddy and Chad Bray, Friday, 2 March 2018: “The European Union will hit back at the heart of the United States, slapping tariffs on products like Harley-Davidsons, Kentucky bourbon and bluejeans, if President Trump goes ahead with a plan to place tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president of the bloc’s executive arm vowed on Friday. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made the remarks to the German news media in reaction to the proposed tariffs. He said the plans to tax the American goods, produced in the home states of key Republican leaders, had not yet been finalized, but amounted to treating them ‘the same way’ that European products would be handled if the metals tariffs go through. ‘None of this is reasonable, but reason is a sentiment that is very unevenly distributed in this world,’ Mr. Juncker declared. He said any measures taken by the bloc would conform with rules set by the World Trade Organization…. Mr. Juncker’s was not the only denunciation to flow in after Mr. Trump told industry executives on Thursday that he planned to impose penalties of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports from all countries. Criticism came from governments, lawmakers, metals makers and labor unions around the world.”

Trump was angry and ‘unglued’ when he started a trade war, officials say, NBC News, Stephanie Ruhle and Peter Alexander, Friday, 2 March 2018: “With global markets shaken by President Donald Trump’s surprise decision to impose strict tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president went into battle mode on Friday: ‘Trade wars are good, and easy to win,’ he wrote on Twitter. But the public show of confidence belies the fact that Trump’s policy maneuver, which may ultimately harm U.S. companies and American consumers, was announced without any internal review by government lawyers or his own staff, according to a review of an internal White House document. According to two officials, Trump’s decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team. On Wednesday evening, the president became ‘unglued,’ in the words of one official familiar with the president’s state of mind. A trifecta of events had set him off in a way that two officials said they had not seen before: Hope Hicks’ testimony to lawmakers investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, conduct by his embattled attorney general and the treatment of his son-in-law by his chief of staff. Trump, the two officials said, was angry and gunning for a fight, and he chose a trade war, spurred on by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the White House director for trade — and against longstanding advice from his economic chair Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.”

White House softens tone on gun-safety measures after Trump meets with the National Rifle Association, The Washington Post, David Nakamura, Friday, 2 March 2018: “The White House appeared to soften its tone on gun-control measures Friday after President Trump met privately with officials from the National Rifle Association the night before. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the White House is still deliberating on what type of proposals it will support in the wake of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., in which 17 people were killed. She said Trump still supports raising the age limit to buy assault rifles from 18 to 21 but added that he understands there is ‘not a lot of broad support’ for such a proposal. ‘I think he thinks it would probably have more potential in the states than it would at the federal level,’ Sanders told reporters at the White House. On background checks, she said Trump does not necessarily support universal background checks ‘but certainly improving the background check system. He wants to see what that legislation, the final piece of it looks like. “Universal” means something different to a lot of people.’ Trump tweeted Thursday evening about the meeting, which was not listed on his public schedule: ‘Good (Great) meeting in the Oval Office tonight with the NRA!'” See also, How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries, The New York Times, Audrey Carlsen and Sahil Chinoy, Friday, 2 March 2018.

Continue reading Week 59, Friday, 2 March – Thursday, 8 March 2018 (Days 407-413)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 23 February 2018, Day 400:

 

Sarah Chadwick, a survivor of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida: ‘We should call AF-15s ‘Marco Rubio’ because they’re both easy to buy,’ The Hill, Brandon Carter, Friday, 23 February 2018: “A survivor of the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School criticized Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Twitter early Friday, suggesting he is ‘easy to buy’ for accepting donations from the National Rifle Association (NRA). ‘We should change the names of AR-15s to ‘Marco Rubio’ because they are so easy to buy,’ Stoneman Douglas junior Sarah Chadwick tweeted Friday. Rubio has been criticized by survivors of the shooting for accepting donations from the NRA. On Wednesday at a CNN town hall with survivors of the shooting, junior Cameron Kasky asked Rubio if he would commit to no longer accepting donations from the gun group. ‘Senator Rubio, can you tell me right now that you will not accept a single donation from the NRA in the future?’ Kasky asked. Rubio didn’t directly answer, telling Kasky that ‘people buy into my agenda’ and saying he supports both the Second Amendment and ‘the right of you and everyone here to be able to go to school and be safe.’ The Florida senator was repeatedly confronted during the town hall event, with the father of one girl killed during the shooting  calling Rubio’s comments ‘pathetically weak.'”

An Australian Model on Guns? Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Reject Comparisons, The New York Times, Peter Baker and Damien Cave, Friday, 23 February 2018: “One of the most powerful moments during President Trump’s meeting with survivors and relatives of the Florida school shooting this week came when a student pleaded with the president to do what Australia did after a similar tragedy. As it happened, Mr. Trump had an opportunity on Friday to get a firsthand report on Australia’s crackdown on guns when he hosted the country’s prime minister at the White House. But both men quickly discounted any comparisons, saying their nations are too different…. Australia embarked on one of the world’s most expansive efforts to rid a society of gun violence after a mass shooting in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur on April 28, 1996, left 35 dead and many others injured. At that time, it was Australia’s 13th mass shooting in less than two decades and the deadliest such incident to date in the Western world. Even in the United States since then, only two episodes have eclipsed that death toll, the massacres in an Orlando gay nightclub in 2016 and at a Las Vegas concert last year. In response to the 1996 shooting, John Howard, then Australia’s conservative prime minister, moved quickly, introducing a federal law to officially make guns a privilege, not a right. Gun owners were forced to provide a valid reason for owning a weapon, such as farming or hunting. Licensing rules were tightened, a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases was imposed and a national gun registry was established. Semiautomatic rifles, like the one used at Port Arthur in 1996 and in Parkland last week, were severely restricted, and Australia engaged in a buyback program that took more than 650,000 firearms off the streets and generated attention around the world. Gun control advocates in the United States regularly point to Australia when the other side says that new laws would not make a difference. President Barack Obama cited Australia as a model after a shooting in Oregon in 2015 and Hillary Clinton, running to succeed him against Mr. Trump, said the Australian approach was ‘worth considering.'”

Defying the National Rifle Association, Florida Lawmakers Back Raising Age Limits on Assault Rifles, The New York Times, Patricia Mazzei and Jess Bidgood, Friday, 23 February 2018: “Gov. Rick Scott and top state lawmakers proposed on Friday the most significant move toward gun control in Florida in decades, backing new limits that defy the National Rifle Association but fall short of demands from survivors of last week’s school shooting. Faced with massive protests, the Republican governor announced a plan to raise the minimum age to buy any firearm, including semiautomatic rifles, from 18 to 21. Mr. Scott also vowed to strengthen rules to keep weapons away from people who have mental health problems or injunctions against them for stalking or domestic violence…. Student protesters who rallied at the State Capitol on Wednesday had demanded a complete ban on military-style assault rifles. On Friday, students said they were disappointed, if unsurprised, that Mr. Scott had stopped short of a ban, but vowed to keep pushing for one…. The move from Republicans demonstrated how quickly the politics around guns had shifted in Tallahassee, where the N.R.A. has wielded enormous influence for years. After mass shootings at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016 and in Fort Lauderdale last year, the state’s leaders resisted demands to respond with stricter gun laws.”

Continue reading Week 58, Friday, 23 February – Thursday, 1 March 2018 (Days 400-406)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 16 February 2018, Day 393:

 

13 Russians Indicted as Mueller Reveals Effort to Aid Trump Campaign, The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo and Sharon LaFraniere, Friday, 16 February 2018: “The Justice Department charged 13 Russians and three companies on Friday in a sprawling indictment that unveiled a sophisticated network designed to subvert the 2016 election and to support the Trump campaign. It stretched from an office in St. Petersburg, Russia, into the social feeds of Americans and ultimately reached the streets of election battleground states. The Russians stole the identities of American citizens, posed as political activists and used the flash points of immigration, religion and race to manipulate a campaign in which those issues were already particularly divisive, prosecutors said. Some of the Russians were also in contact with ‘unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign,’ according to court papers. Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel leading the investigation, made no accusation that President Trump or his associates were knowingly part of the conspiracy. ‘The indictment alleges that the Russian conspirators want to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,’ Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the inquiry, said in a brief news conference. ‘We must not allow them to succeed.’ The 37-page indictment — handed up by a federal grand jury in Washington — amounted to a detailed rebuttal of Mr. Trump, who has sowed doubts that Russia interfered in the election and dismissed questions about its meddling as ‘fake news.’ The Justice Department said Mr. Mueller’s work was not complete. The indictment does not address the hacking of Democratic email systems or whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the F.B.I. investigation into Russian interference. Mr. Mueller is negotiating with the president’s lawyers over the terms of a possible interview.” See also, As part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announces the indictment of 13 Russians linked to a troll farm, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett, Sari Horwitz, and Rosalind S Helderman, Friday, 16 February 2018. See also, Timeline: How Russian trolls allegedly tried to throw the 2016 election to Trump, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 16 February 2018: “In a 37-page indictment issued by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team on Friday, we got our first detailed look at how Russian trolls working for an organization called the Internet Research Agency allegedly tried to throw the 2016 election to Donald Trump….  While the document is one of the first full articulations of that effort, it isn’t comprehensive. It’s an indictment focused on a specific set of charges targeting a specific group of people — 13 in total. It doesn’t include, for example, any discussion of how Russia might have hacked the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton campaign. It doesn’t include evidence that senior Trump campaign officials colluded with Russia deliberately to affect the outcome of the race. It doesn’t show Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand directly in the meddling. What it does include, though, is significant. It shows a concerted years-long effort by a group dedicated to undermining the American political system. It shows the scale of that effort, eventually involving 80 staff in St. Petersburg, a budget of more than a million dollars a month, hundreds of social media accounts, stolen identities of American citizens — and even visits into the United States by Russians traveling under visas obtained through misrepresentation. [This article includes] a timeline of what the indictment lays out. [It includes] other noteworthy events, as well; they’re shaded in gray.” See also, The Indictment of 13 Russians for Orchestrating a Vast, Well-Funded Operation to Tip the Electoral Scales Toward Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Makes Trump’s Hoax Claim Harder to Sell, The New York Times, Mark Landler and Michael D. Shear, Friday, 16 February 2018: “He brushed it off as a hoax. He mused that it might be China, or a guy from New Jersey, or ‘somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds.’ He said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had assured him it wasn’t true. And, he added, ‘I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it.’ President Trump has never stopped belittling the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. But on Friday, with the indictment of 13 Russians for orchestrating a vast, well-funded operation to interfere in the election, those denials collided with a mountain of evidence arrayed by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. For Mr. Trump, who has tried to discredit Mr. Mueller’s investigation as a politically motivated witch hunt, it was a direct assault on the version of reality that he has sought tirelessly to create. By laying out a meticulous case for how Russia tried to tip the electoral scales toward Mr. Trump in 2016, Mr. Mueller has made it much harder for the president to dismiss the investigation as mere politics. He may also have made it harder for Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Mueller himself, since, as some Democratic lawmakers argued, that would look like an attempt to help Russia further undermine American democracy. Before the charges were announced, the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, briefed Mr. Trump and Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, and handed over a copy of the indictment, according to a person briefed on the matter. Mr. Mueller was not present at the briefing.” See also, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Indictment Ends Trump’s Myth of the Russia ‘Hoax,’ The New Yorker, David Remnick, Friday, 16 February 2018. See also, The White House’s extremely dishonest statement on the Russia indictments, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 16 February 2018. See also, The Propaganda Tools Used by Russians to Influence the 2016 Election, The New York Times, Alicia Parlapiano and Jasmine C. Lee, Friday, 16 February 2018. See also, Reading the Mueller Indictment: A Russia-American Fraud, The New Yorker, Evan Osnos, Friday, 16 February 2018: “In its particulars, the indictment, which charged thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations with multiple conspiracies and frauds, fills in the details of an ‘active measures’ campaign that had been described in general terms by analysts and journalists over the past year. It offers a playbook for manipulating American democracy using a mix of classic espionage, private-sector social-media tools, and partisan ideology. The operation, centered on the now infamous troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency, extended to scores of undercover staff and associates in multiple countries, including the United States, and deployed a range of political gambits. Among the details in the document, I was struck, in particular, by three themes—political weapons, in effect—that pose questions for technology companies, the intelligence community, and voters: The power of anonymity…. The power of voter suppression…. The power of news illiteracy.” See also, What Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Indictment Reveals About Russia’s Internet Research Agency, The New Yorker, Adrian Chen, Friday, 16 February 2018. See also, The Internet Research Agency, The New York Times Magazine, Adrian Chen, Tuesday, 2 June 2015. “From a nondescript office building in St. Petersburg, Russia, an army of well-paid ‘trolls’ has tried to wreak havoc all around the Internet–and in real-life American communities.” See also, Inside a 3-Year Russian Campaign to Influence U.S. Voters, The New York Times, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, Friday, 16 February 2018.

Another Mass Shooting. Another Case in Which Signs of White Violence Didn’t Raise Alarms. The Intercept, Shaun King, Friday, 16 February 2018: “It was true for Dylann Roof in Charleston. It was true about for any number of violent white men in Charlottesville. And it was true for Nikolas Cruz in Parkland, Florida. Like these other young men who turned violent, lots of people who interacted with Cruz saw the day coming when he would do something drastic, maybe even one day shoot up a school. He had long since been expelled from his high school. One student who had served with him in the Junior ROTC called him ‘a psycho.’ Another student said he was a weapons enthusiast who tried to sell weapons at school. Yet another student said he had been banned from bringing a backpack to school as a student after bullet casings were found in it. Classmates reported that he stalked someone in the school. Another student said he was physically abusive to his ex-girlfriend. His social media profiles were full of guns, ammo, bigotry, and threats. A teacher said he was a known threat. Neighbors knew something was up; Cruz talked constantly about killing animals. Local law enforcement say they have not verified alleged ties to a white supremacist group, but it seems Cruz displayed a white supremacist ideology: A classmate said he talked about how white people were better than black and Latino people. Last year, he had been reported to the FBI for making violent threats online, and it happened again this year. Someone warned the FBI about Cruz on January 5, 2018, according to the bureau, but the feds never investigated it. Local police reportedly came to his house 39 times over a period of seven years, although it’s not yet clear if the incidents all involved Cruz. Yet none of this prevented Cruz from building what he openly admitted was an ‘arsenal’ of weapons that he repeatedly said online that he hoped to use – even at a school. Imagine if Nikolas Cruz was a young Muslim. Imagine he had, however fleetingly, been tied to a group of radical Muslims operating elsewhere in Florida — whether it was true or not, that just the suggestion had been made. I can tell you this much: If Cruz was a young Muslim, this would’ve never been allowed to go this far. Do you really think the FBI would have failed to investigate a young Muslim with this history?” See also, F.B.I. Was Warned of Florida Suspect’s Desire to Kill but Did Not Act, The New York Times, Katie Benner, Patricia Mazzei, and Adam Goldman, Friday, 16 February 2018: “The F.B.I. received a tip last month from someone close to Nikolas Cruz that he owned a gun and had talked of committing a school shooting, the bureau revealed Friday, but it acknowledged that it had failed to investigate. The tipster, who called an F.B.I. hotline on Jan. 5, told the bureau that Mr. Cruz had a ‘desire to kill people, erratic behavior and disturbing social media posts,’ the F.B.I. said. The information should have been assessed and forwarded to the Miami F.B.I. field office, the bureau said. But that never happened. On Wednesday, Mr. Cruz, 19, killed 17 students and teachers at his former high school in Parkland, Fla., law enforcement officials said. The tip about Mr. Cruz appeared to be the second in four months, after another person told the bureau about online comments from Mr. Cruz that he wanted to become ‘a professional school shooter.'”

Donald Trump, Karen McDougal (a Playboy Model), and a System for Concealing Infidelity, The New Yorker, Ronan Farrow, Friday, 16 February 2018: “In June, 2006, Donald Trump taped an episode of his reality-television show, ‘The Apprentice,’ at the Playboy Mansion, in Los Angeles. Hugh Hefner, Playboy’s publisher, threw a pool party for the show’s contestants with dozens of current and former Playmates, including Karen McDougal, a slim brunette who had been named Playmate of the Year, eight years earlier. In 2001, the magazine’s readers voted her runner-up for ‘Playmate of the ’90s,’ behind Pamela Anderson. At the time of the party, Trump had been married to the Slovenian model Melania Knauss for less than two years; their son, Barron, was a few months old. Trump seemed uninhibited by his new family obligations. McDougal later wrote that Trump ‘immediately took a liking to me, kept talking to me – telling me how beautiful I was, etc…. Trump and McDougal began an affair, which McDougal later memorialized in an eight-page, handwritten document provided to The New Yorker by John Crawford, a friend of McDougal’s. When I showed McDougal the document, she expressed surprise that I had obtained it but confirmed that the handwriting was her own. The interactions that McDougal outlines in the document share striking similarities with the stories of other women who claim to have had sexual relationships with Trump, or who have accused him of propositioning them for sex or sexually harassing them. McDougal describes their affair as entirely consensual. But her account provides a detailed look at how Trump and his allies used clandestine hotel-room meetings, payoffs, and complex legal agreements to keep affairs—sometimes multiple affairs he carried out simultaneously—out of the press.” See also, Karen McDougal Describes Alleged Affair With Trump in New Yorker Article, The New York Times, Niraj Chokshi, Friday, 16 February 2018: “A woman who says that she and President Trump had an affair over a decade ago offered new details about the alleged relationship and an effort to buy her public silence. A Friday report published by The New Yorker describes how a tabloid publisher may have moved to ‘catch and kill’ the story and pay off the woman, Karen McDougal, as Mr. Trump’s candidacy gained momentum. Ms. McDougal, a former Playboy model, wrote an eight-page note, obtained by The New Yorker, describing the relationship, which allegedly began in 2006, while Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania Trump, and lasted about nine months. Ms. McDougal said she regretted signing a contract with American Media Inc., the publisher of The National Enquirer, for the rights to her story. ‘I feel let down,’ Ms. McDougal told The New Yorker. ‘I’m the one who took it, so it’s my fault, too. But I didn’t understand the full parameters of it.’ The publisher’s $150,000 payment to Ms. McDougal was reported by The Wall Street Journal just days before the 2016 election, but the Friday report sheds new light on the deal-making process, which Ms. McDougal and those close to her described as exploitative. Former American Media employees told The New Yorker that the company’s chairman and chief executive, David Pecker, who is close with Mr. Trump, routinely bought stories with no intention of running them, sometimes using the pieces as leverage.”

Continue reading Week 57, Friday, 16 February – Thursday, 22 February 2018 (Days 393-399)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 9 February 2018, Day 386:

 

Trump Praises Rob Porter, Top White House Adviser Accused of Abusing His Ex-Wives, and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly Says He’s Willing to Resign as Abuse Scandal Roils the White House, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Julie Hirschfeld, and Michael S. Schmidt, Friday, 9 February 2018: “John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, told officials in the West Wing on Friday that he was willing to step down over his handling of allegations of spousal abuse against Rob Porter, the staff secretary who resigned in disgrace this week over the accusations, according to two officials aware of the discussions. The officials emphasized that they did not consider a resignation imminent, and that Mr. Kelly — a retired four-star Marine general who early in his tenure often used a threat of quitting as a way to temper President Trump’s behavior — had made no formal offer. In comments to reporters at the White House on Friday, Mr. Kelly said he had not offered to resign…. [M]any, including the president himself, have turned their ire on Mr. Kelly for vouching for Mr. Porter’s character and falsely asserting that he had moved aggressively to oust him once his misdeeds were discovered. For all the turmoil, Mr. Trump on Friday warmly praised Mr. Porter, saying it was a ‘tough time’ for his former aide and noting that Mr. Porter had denied the accusations. ‘We wish him well,’ Mr. Trump said of his former aide, who was accused of physical and emotional abuse by two ex-wives. The president added, ‘He also, as you probably know, says he is innocent, and I think you have to remember that.’ ‘He worked very hard,’ Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked for a comment about Mr. Porter. The president said he had only ‘recently’ learned of the allegations against his former aide and was surprised. ‘He did a very good job when he was in the White House, and we hope he has a wonderful career, and he will have a great career ahead of him,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘But it was very sad when we heard about it, and certainly he’s also very sad now.’ The glowing praise of a staff member accused of serial violence against women was in line with the president’s own denials of sexual impropriety despite accusations from more than a dozen women and his habit of accepting claims of innocence from men facing similar allegations. Among them was Roy S. Moore, the former Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, who is accused of molesting teenage girls.” See also, Trump lavishes praise on Rob Porter, former top aide accused of domestic violence, The Washington Post, Jenna Johnson, Friday, 9 February 2018. See also, Trump’s full comments essentially defending Rob Porter, annotated, The Washington Post, Aaron Blake, Friday, 9 February 2018. See also, Who knew what and when about the abuse allegations against Rob Porter, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 9 February 2018.

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly offers account of Rob Porter exit that some White House aides consider untrue, The Washington Post, Philip Rucker and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 9 February 2018: “White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly on Friday morning instructed senior staff to communicate a version of events about the departure of staff secretary Rob Porter that contradicts the Trump administration’s previous accounts, according to two senior officials. During a staff meeting, Kelly told those in attendance to say he took action to remove Porter within 40 minutes of learning that abuse allegations from two ex-wives were credible, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because discussions in such meetings are supposed to be confidential. ‘He told the staff he took immediate and direct action,’ one of the officials said, adding that people after the meeting expressed disbelief with one another and felt his latest account was not true. That version of events contradicts both the public record and accounts from numerous other White House officials in recent days as the Porter drama unfolded. Kelly — who first learned of the domestic violence allegations against Porter months ago — issued a glowing statement of support for Porter’s personal character after the allegations first surfaced publicly Tuesday and privately urged him to remain on the job until the next day when his resignation was announced. At Friday’s meeting, Kelly also told subordinates to convey to other White House aides that he cares about domestic violence, according to the officials.” See also, What Does John Kelly, Trump’s Chief of Staff, See When He Looks at the People Around Him? The New Yorker, Amy Davidson Sorkin, Friday, 9 February 2018.

David Sorensen, a White House Speechwriter, Resigned After a News Report Detailed Accusations From a Former Wife Who Said He Had Abused Her During Their Marriage, The New York Times, Katie Rogers, Friday, 9 February 2018: “David Sorensen, a White House speechwriter, resigned on Friday after a news report detailed accusations from a former wife who said he had abused her during their marriage. His resignation came two days after Rob Porter, the White House staff secretary, submitted his own resignation after his two former wives publicly accused him of being abusive to them when they were married. In an interview in The Washington Post, Mr. Sorensen’s former wife, Jessica Corbett, detailed a volatile two-and-a-half-year marriage in which Mr. Sorensen ran over her foot while driving a car and put out a lit cigarette on her hand. Their divorce became final last fall. Ms. Corbett said she described those episodes to the F.B.I. last fall as it was conducting a background check of Mr. Sorensen, according to The Post. Mr. Sorensen denied Ms. Corbett’s account, and insisted that she was the abuser.”

Continue reading Week 56, Friday, 9 February – Thursday, 15 February 2018 (Days 386-392)

[Read more…]

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 2 February 2018, Day 379:

 

House Republicans Release Secret Memo Accusing Russia Investigators of Bias, The New York Times, Nicholas Fandos, Adam Goldman, and Charlie Savage, Friday, 2 February 2018: “House Republicans released a politically charged memo on Friday that accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser suspected of being an agent of Russia. The memo alarmed national security officials and outraged Democrats, who accused the Republicans of misrepresenting sensitive government information through omissions and inaccuracies. President Trump declassified it over the objections of the F.B.I., which had expressed ‘grave concerns’ over its accuracy in a rare public break from the White House. The three-and-a-half-page memo, written by Republican congressional aides, criticized information used by law enforcement officials in their application for a warrant to wiretap the former campaign adviser, Carter Page, and named the senior F.B.I. and Justice Department officials who approved the highly classified application. But it fell well short of making the case promised by some Republicans: that the evidence it contained would cast doubt on the origins of the Russia investigation and possibly undermine the inquiry, which has been taken over by a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. The Page warrant is just one aspect of the broader investigation. Instead, the document confirmed that contacts between a former Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, and Russian intermediaries were a primary factor in the opening of the investigation in July 2016…. [A] 10-page Democratic memo written to rebut the Republican document says that the F.B.I. was more forthcoming with the surveillance court than the Republicans say. The F.B.I. told the court that the information it received from Mr. Steele was politically motivated, though the agency did not say it was financed by Democrats, according to two people familiar with the Democratic memo. Notably, the Republican memo does not assert that Mr. Steele’s information was the fountainhead of the broader Russia investigation as many Republicans and conservative media commentators have insinuated.” See also, Read the Nunes Memo, Annotated, The New York Times, Annotations by Charlie Savage, Friday, 2 February 2018. See also, Release of disputed Republican memo on FBI surveillance unleashes waves of recrimination, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett, Karoun Demirjian, and Philip Rucker, Friday, 2 February 2018. See also, Justice Department told court of source’s political motivation in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say, The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima, Friday, 2 February 2018: “The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political entity, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter. A now-declassified Republican memo alleged that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was duped into approving the wiretap request by a politicized FBI and Justice Department. The memo was written by House Intelligence Committee Republicans and alleged a ‘troubling breakdown of legal processes’ flowing from the government’s wiretapping of former Trump aide Carter Page. But its central allegation — that the government failed to disclose a source’s political bias — is baseless, the officials said. The Justice Department made ‘ample disclosure of relevant, material facts’ to the court that revealed ‘the research was being paid for by a political entity,’ said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.” See also, Republican Memo Escalates Clash Over Russia Probe. Release comes after the FBI expressed ‘grave concerns’ over the accuracy of the document. The Wall Street Journal, Byron Tau and Rebecca Ballhaus, Friday, 2 February 2018: “[T]he document’s claims are difficult to evaluate without access to the underlying, highly classified law-enforcement material that it was based on. It also doesn’t address or dispute the research collected by Mr. Steele that was included in the warrant application, and it recommends no changes to U.S. intelligence programs…. Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, disputed the memo’s contention that the FBI didn’t disclose the political motive behind Mr. Steele’s research, saying that the memo is a political document full of omissions and cherry-picked facts designed to muddy the waters of the Russia investigation, which has already ensnared several top Trump advisers…. Democrats on the committee have compiled their own memo on the matter, which addresses the information that prosecutors used beyond Mr. Steele’s research, but the GOP-controlled committee has so far blocked its release.” See also, A complete timeline of the events behind the memo that threatens to rip D.C. in two, The Washington Post, Philip Bump, Friday, 2 February 2018. See also, The Nunes Memo Undermines the Right’s Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory, The New Yorker, John Cassidy, Friday, 2 February 2018.

‘Never any hesitation’: Trump was quickly persuaded to support the release of the classified Republican memo, The Washington Post, Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, and Josh Dawsey, Friday, 2 February 2018: “President Trump was only vaguely aware of a controversial, classified memo about the FBI’s Russia investigation when two House conservatives brought it to his attention in a Jan. 18 phone call. The conversation piqued Trump’s interest. Over the next two weeks, according to interviews with eight senior administration officials and other advisers to the president, he tuned in to cable television segments about the memo. He talked to friends and advisers about it. And, before he had even read it, Trump became absolutely convinced of one thing: The memo needed to come out…. The president did not actually see the memo — written by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Nunes’s staff — until Wednesday afternoon, following the committee’s Monday vote to initiate its release, officials said…. Trump told aides and confidants he believed the memo would vindicate his claim early last year that the expansive Russia investigation overseen by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was a ‘witch hunt.’ He had long expressed frustration, both publicly and privately, with his Department of Justice and, specifically, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who is supervising Mueller’s work. The president said he thought the release of the memo would help build a public argument against Rosenstein’s handling of the case, according to people familiar with the discussions. Trump suggested to aides and confidants that the memo might give him the justification to fire Rosenstein — something about which Trump has privately mused — or make other changes at the Justice Department, which he had complained was not sufficiently loyal to him. Inside the narrow corridors and cramped offices of the West Wing, aides knew that trying to persuade their boss to keep the memo private would likely be a fruitless endeavor.” See also, Did Trump just reveal the real reason the Republican memo was written? The Washington Post, Amber Phillips, Friday, 2 February 2018.

Trump Calls Justice Department and F.B.I. Conduct ‘a Disgrace,’ The New York Times, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Friday, 2 February 2018: “President Trump on Friday intensified his attacks on his own Justice Department and F.B.I. for their handling of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, hinting that senior leaders there should face consequences for conduct he called ‘a disgrace.’ Mr. Trump, who has become increasingly outspoken in his suggestions of wrongdoing by law enforcement officials as the inquiry has reached deeper inside the White House, made his comments as he announced that he had declassified a secret memo prepared by House Republicans that insinuates that the Russia investigation has been tainted by Democratic bias…. The release of the memo raised fresh questions about whether Mr. Trump — who last year fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director overseeing the Russia inquiry, and then sought to remove Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel named to take it over — might seek next to oust Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who named Mr. Mueller. The president, who first considered getting rid of Mr. Rosenstein last summer, pointedly refused to say on Friday whether he was more likely to do so now, cocking his head and telling reporters who pressed him on the matter: ‘You figure that out.’ But the release of the memo underscored how Mr. Trump has transformed his own suspicions and unsubstantiated theories about an inquiry he has repeatedly called a ‘hoax’ and a ‘witch hunt’ into a set of official accusations of corruption against the very people investigating him. The president has called for months for the compilation of such evidence, often taking to Twitter to demand that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. release information that could show political bias on the part of those investigating whether his campaign colluded with Russia.” See also, Trump escalates his attacks on FBI leadership. This time he claims the agency favored Democrats over Republicans. The Washington Post, John Wagner, Friday, 2 February 2018.

Continue reading Week 55, Friday, 2 February – Thursday, 8 February 2018 (Days 379-385)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 26 January 2018, Day 372:

 

8 times since June the White House denied Trump was considering firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, CNN, Marshall Cohen and Aileen Graef, Friday, 26 January 2018: “President Donald Trump considered firing special counsel Robert Mueller last June, but backed down after White House counsel Don McGahn threatened to quit, a person familiar with the matter told CNN. Since then, Trump and his allies have repeatedly denied that the President had ever considered firing Mueller, who is tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US elections and any possible collusion with Trump’s campaign. The President has repeatedly denied any collusion.” See also, Shall we protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller now, Mr. MCConnell? The Washington Post, Editorial Board, Friday, 26 January 2018: “‘I don’t hear much pressure to pass anything,’ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in November when asked about bills that would protect special counsel Robert S. Mueller III should President Trump try to fire him. ‘There’s been no indication that the president or the White House are not cooperating with the special counsel,’ Mr. McConnell explained. Now there is an indication, and a pretty strong one. The New York Times reported and The Post quickly confirmed Thursday that the president moved to fire Mr. Mueller in June, shortly after the special counsel’s appointment. Mr. Trump pulled back only after White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn threatened to resign…. Meanwhile, all the members of the president’s staff who baldly lied to reporters about whether Mr. Trump contemplated firing Mr. Mueller have surrendered even more dignity — and once again made clear that official White House assertions, from the president down, cannot be taken at face value. For his part, Mr. Trump flicked away the reports as ‘fake news,’ despite several news organizations’ independent confirmation of the story. With Mr. Trump’s desire to fire Mr. Mueller now more than speculative, Congress must finally take action. Senators already have two bipartisan bills before them that would insulate the special counsel from the president’s pique…. Congressional leaders’ excuses for inaction have evaporated. It is time for them to choose: party or country?”

New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut plan lawsuit challenging constitutionality of the 2017 tax law, The Washington Post, Renae Merle, Friday, 26 January 2018: “The governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut said Friday they are forming a multistate coalition to sue the Trump administration over the 2017 tax bill, challenging the constitutionality of a provision that limits Americans’ ability to deduct their state and local taxes from their federal bill. The law sets a new cap of $10,000 on the amount of state and local property and income taxes that can be deducted from federal taxable income. That will disproportionately harm their residents, the governors said in a conference call, and is motivated by politics rather than sound fiscal policy. All three governors, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, and Phil Murphy of New Jersey, are Democrats. ‘The new federal tax law destroyed a century-old tax structure between the federal government and the states,’ Cuomo said on Twitter. ‘New York will sue.’… The lawsuit will be filed in federal court in the coming weeks, the governors said. They also said they are talking to other states about potentially joining the coalition.” See also, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Typically a Lone Wolf, Shifts Toward Coalition Building, The New York Times, Vivian Wang and Nick Corasaniti, Friday, 26 January 2018.

Dozens of People Recount Pattern of Sexual Misconduct by Steve Wynn, Las Vegas Mogul and ‘Great Friend’ of Trump, The Wall Street Journal, Alexandra Berzon, Chris Kirkham, Elizabeth Bernstein, and Kate O’Keeffe, Friday, 26 January 2018: “Not long after the billionaire casino mogul Steve Wynn opened his flagship Wynn Las Vegas in 2005, a manicurist who worked there arrived at the on-site salon visibly distressed following an appointment in Mr. Wynn’s office. Sobbing, she told a colleague Mr. Wynn had forced her to have sex, and she repeated that to others later. After she gave Mr. Wynn a manicure, she said, he pressured her to take her clothes off and told her to lie on the massage table he kept in his office suite, according to people she gave the account to. The manicurist said she told Mr. Wynn she didn’t want to have sex and was married, but he persisted in his demands that she do so, and ultimately she did disrobe and they had sex, the people remember her saying. After being told of the allegations, the woman’s supervisor said she filed a detailed report to the casino’s human-resources department recounting the episode. Mr. Wynn later paid the manicurist a $7.5 million settlement, according to people familiar with the matter…. Beyond this incident, dozens of people The Wall Street Journal interviewed who have worked at Mr. Wynn’s casinos told of behavior that cumulatively would amount to a decades-long pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Wynn. Some described him pressuring employees to perform sex acts…. [Mr. Wynn] is a former casino-business rival of President Donald Trump, who said in 2016 that Mr. Wynn was a ‘great friend’ whose advice he valued. After Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Wynn became the Republican National Committee’s finance chairman.… The contrast between Mr. Wynn’s position and that of the salon and spa employees is stark. Former employees said their awareness of Mr. Wynn’s power in Las Vegas, combined with the knowledge that the jobs they held were among the best-paying available there, added up to a feeling of dependence and intimidation when Mr. Wynn made requests of them. Some said that feeling was heightened at times by the presence in a confined office space of one or more of his German shepherds, trained to respond to commands in German. The Journal contacted more than 150 people who work or had worked for Mr. Wynn; none reached out to the Journal on their own. Most of those who spoke to the Journal about Mr. Wynn said they worried that doing so could hurt their ability to work elsewhere because of his influence in the casino industry and the state.” See also, Stephen Wynn, Casino Mogul, Friend of Trump, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Finance Committee, Is Accused of Decades of Sexual Misconduct, The New York Times, Matthew Goldstein, Tiffany Hsu, and Kenneth P. Vogel, Friday, 26 January 2018: “A detailed investigative report in The Wall Street Journal portrayed Mr. Wynn, a billionaire casino magnate and prominent political donor, as a man who frequently demanded naked massages from female employees, sometimes pressuring them for sex and to masturbate him. The newspaper said that the activity had gone on for decades and that some female employees had complained to supervisors about Mr. Wynn’s behavior…. The fallout from the story mounted during the day. Investors fled shares of Wynn Resorts, Mr. Wynn’s casino company, driving the stock price down 10 percent…. The allegations could also have political impact as well. Mr. Wynn was named chairman of the Republican National Committee’s finance committee shortly after the election of President Trump in November 2016. Mr. Trump has described Mr. Wynn as a friend.” See also, Steve Wynn, Republican National Committee finance chairman, faces allegations of sexual misconduct, The Washington Post, Ed O’Keefe, Friday, 26 January 2018.

Continue reading Week 54, Friday, 26 January – Thursday, 1 February 2018 (Days 372-378)

[Read more…]

 

 

Keeping Track (of some things), Staying Outraged (it is possible), and Resisting (it’s essential)

 

Passages in bold in the body of the texts below are my emphasis. This is an ongoing project, and I update the site frequently. Because I try to stay focused on what has actually happened, I usually let the news ‘settle’ a day or so before posting. I hope readers will peruse the articles in full for a better understanding of the issues and their context; our democracy and our future depend on citizens who can distinguish between facts and falsehoods and who are engaged in the political process.

 

Friday, 19 January 2018, Day 365:

 

Government Shutdown Begins as Budget Talks Falter in the Senate, The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Thomas Kaplan, Friday, 19 January 2018: “Much of the federal government officially shut down early Saturday morning after Senate Democrats, showing remarkable solidarity in the face of a clear political danger, blocked consideration of a stopgap spending measure to keep the government operating. The shutdown, coming one year to the day after President Trump took office, set off a new round of partisan recriminations and posed risks for both parties. It came after a fruitless last-minute negotiating session at the White House between Mr. Trump and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. With just 50 senators voting in favor, Senate Republican leaders fell well short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed on the spending measure, which had passed the House on Thursday. Five conservative state Democrats voted for the spending measure. Five Republicans voted against it, although one of those, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, did so for procedural reasons.” See also, How Washington Reached the Brink of a Shutdown, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Friday, 19 January 2018: “Here’s a look back, over the course of one year, at the events that led to the brink of a government shutdown, with immigration and spending as the main drivers.” See also, How Every Senator Voted on the Government Shutdown, The New York Times, Jasmine C. Lee and Sara Simon, Friday, 19 January 2018.

Supreme Court to Consider Challenge to Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 19 January 2018: “The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security, adding a major test of presidential power to a docket already crowded with blockbusters. The case concerns Mr. Trump’s third and most considered bid to make good on a campaign promise to secure the nation’s borders. But challengers to the latest ban, issued as a presidential proclamation in September, said it was tainted by religious animus and not adequately justified by national security concerns. The decision to hear the case, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, came almost a year after the first travel ban, issued a week after Mr. Trump took office, caused chaos at the nation’s airports and was promptly blocked by courts around the nation. A second version of the ban, issued in March, fared little better, though the Supreme Court allowed part of it go into effect in June when it agreed to hear the Trump administration’s appeals in two cases. But the Supreme Court dismissed those appeals in October after the second ban expired. There is no reason to think the latest appeal will fizzle out, as the September order, unlike the earlier ones, is meant to last indefinitely. The justices are likely to hear arguments in the latest case in the spring and to issue a decision in late June. The ban restricts travel from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim. For now, most citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea will be barred from entering the United States, along with some groups of people from Venezuela. The restrictions vary in their details, but for the most part, citizens of the countries are forbidden from emigrating to the United States and many of them are barred from working, studying or vacationing here. In December, in a sign that the Supreme Court may be more receptive to upholding the September order, the court allowed it to go into effect as the case moved forward. The move effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when the court said travelers with connections to the United States could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the December ruling.”

After Scoring Huge Tax Cuts, Billionaire Charles Koch Floods House Speaker Paul Ryan With Cash, International Business Times, Alex Kotch, Friday, 19 January 2018: “In the months leading up to the passage of the Republican Party’s long-awaited tax bill last year, the powerful political operation run by the billionaire Koch brothers was one of the strongest forces pressuring lawmakers to pass massive tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. ‘Republicans never hid the fact that this tax bill was about pleasing their big donors,’ Adam Smith, communications director at campaign finance reform nonprofit Every Voice, told International Business Times. ‘And it looks like House Speaker [Paul] Ryan is quickly being rewarded for passing this legislation that overwhelmingly benefits the Kochs and billionaires like them.’ Thirteen days after the U.S. House passed its version of the tax legislation, Charles Koch and his wife, Elizabeth, combined to donate nearly $500,000 to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s joint fundraising committee, according to a new campaign finance report released Thursday. These two donations were by far the largest sums added to Ryan’s coffers in the fourth quarter of 2017, but they were by no means the only major contributions: Marlene Ricketts, the wife of billionaire TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, donated $100,000, as did five other individuals.”

Continue reading Week 53, Friday, 19 January – Thursday, 25 January 2018 (Days 365-371)

[Read more…]