July 14, 2017

Trump, Week 26: Friday, 14 July – Thursday, 20 July 2017 (Days 176-182)

 

 

 

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. 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, 14 July 2017, Day 176:

 

Former Soviet Counterintelligence Officer, Rinat Akhmetshin, Was at the Meeting With Donald Trump Jr. and Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, NBC News, Ken Dilanian, Natasha Lebedeva, and Hallie Jackson, Friday, 14 July 2017: “The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. and others on the Trump team after a promise of compromising material on Hillary Clinton was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist — a former Soviet counterintelligence officer who is suspected by some U.S. officials of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, NBC News has learned. The lobbyist, first identified by the Associated Press as Rinat Akhmetshin, denies any current ties to Russian spy agencies. He accompanied the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, to the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower attended by Donald Trump Jr.; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and Paul Manafort, former chairman of the Trump campaign. Born in Russia, Akhmetshin served in the Soviet military and emigrated to the U.S., where he holds dual citizenship. He did not respond to NBC News requests for comment Friday, but he told the AP the meeting was not substantive. ‘I never thought this would be such a big deal, to be honest,’ he told the AP. He had been working with Veselnitskaya on a campaign against the Magnitsky Act, a set of sanctions against alleged Russian human rights violators. That issue, which is also related to a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, is what Veselnitskaya told NBC News she discussed with the Trump team.” See also, Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin was present at Trump Jr.’s meeting on 9 June 2016 with Kremlin-connected lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, The Washington Post, Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, Friday, 14 July 2017: “A Russian American lobbyist and veteran of the Soviet military said Friday that he attended a June 2016 meeting between President Trump’s oldest son and a Kremlin-connected lawyer. The presence of Rinat Akhmetshin adds to the potential seriousness of the Trump Tower gathering that is emerging this week as the clearest evidence so far of interactions between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests. And it underscores how, despite Donald Trump Jr.’s pledge this week to be ‘transparent,’ new details about the encounter continue to become public amid investigations by Congress and a special counsel into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.”

The Senate Health-Care Bill Would Be a Giant Step Backward, The New Yorker, John Cassidy, Friday, 14 July 2017: “The draft of the Senate G.O.P. health-care bill that Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, released on Thursday is, in one way, an improvement on the previous version of the bill. The latest draft dropped a proposal to repeal two tax increases on very high earners, which were part of the Affordable Care Act. The revenue from those tax increases was used to help fund some of the A.C.A.’s most progressive features, including the expansion of Medicaid and the subsidies offered to families of modest means for the purchase of private insurance plans. But the merits of the revised Senate bill stop there. Enacting it into law would be a disaster. The old and the sick would be forced to pay far higher premiums; deductibles would go up for almost everyone in the individual market; and many millions of Americans, many of them poor, would lose their health-care coverage entirely. Before delving into the details, it is worth restating what is at stake here: the principle that society is made up of people with mutual obligations, including the duty to try to protect everyone from what Franklin Roosevelt called the ‘hazards and vicissitudes of life,’ such as old age, unemployment, and sickness.” See also, Governors From Both Parties Denounce Senate Republican Obamacare Repeal Bill, The New York Times, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, Friday, 14 July 2017: “The nation’s governors, gathered here for their annual summer meeting, came out strongly on Friday against the new Senate bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, turning up the pressure on Republican leaders struggling to round up the votes to pass the bill next week. Opposition came not just from Democratic governors but from Republicans who split along familiar lines — conservatives who said the legislation did not go far enough and moderates who said it was far too harsh on their state’s vulnerable residents. Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, who at the moment may be the most pivotal figure in the health care debate, said he had ‘great concerns’ with the legislation, and all but declared that he could not support any bill that would scale back Nevada’s Medicaid program. His decision to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act had been ‘a winner for the people of our state,’ he said of the government health insurance program for poor and disabled people.”

Continue reading Week 26, Friday, 14 July – Thursday, 20 July 2017:

Continue reading...

July 14, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
July 7, 2017

Trump, Week 25: Friday, 7 July – Thursday, 13 July 2017 (Days 168-175)

 

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. 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, 7 July 2017, Day 169:

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin denies election hacking after Trump pressed him, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says, The Washington Post, Damian Paletta, David Filipov, and Abby Phillip, Friday, 7 July 2017: “Eight months after an unprecedented U.S election — one that U.S. intelligence agencies say the Russian government tried to sway — President Trump and President Vladimir Putin sat for their first meeting on Friday, a friendly encounter that ended in confusion over whether Trump accepted assurances that the Kremlin was innocent of any wrongdoing during the campaign. Trump, believed to be the intended beneficiary of the Russian meddling, emerged from the extraordinary meeting — which dragged so long that Trump’s wife tried once to break it up — with a deal including Russia and Jordan on a partial Syrian cease-fire. The agreement would mark the first time Washington and Moscow had operated together in Syria to try to reduce the violence. But there were no grand bargains on U.S. sanctions on Russia, the Ukraine crisis or the other issues that have divided the nations for years. The meeting, on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit, opened with Trump telling Putin it was an ‘honor to be with you.’ In the closed-door discussion, Trump pressed Putin ‘on more than one occasion’ on Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential elections, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who attended the two-hour-and-16-minute meeting, told reporters.  Tillerson said ‘President Putin denied such involvement’ but agreed to organize talks ‘regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process.’ But Tillerson’s counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, said that Trump had heard out Putin’s assurances that Moscow did not run a hacking and disinformation effort, and dismissed the entire investigation into the Russian role. ‘President Trump said that this campaign has taken on a rather strange character, because after many months, whenever these accusations are made, no facts are brought,’ Lavrov told Russian reporters. ‘The U.S. president said that he heard clear statements from President Putin about this being untrue, and that he accepted these statements.'” See also, Russia Disputes U.S. Claim Trump ‘Pressed’ Putin on Hacking of the Presidential Election, The Intercept, Robert Mackey, Friday, 7 July 2017: “According to two widely divergent witness accounts, Donald Trump either ‘pressed’ Vladimir Putin repeatedly on Friday to admit that Russia helped him get elected president of the United States — by stealing and releasing embarrassing emails from Democrats — or told the Russian leader that he accepted his claim that Russia had nothing to do with the hacking and called concern over the issue ‘exaggerated.’ Those two very different accounts of what was said in the meeting between Trump and Putin in Hamburg, Germany, came in dueling press briefings given after it by the only other senior officials in the room when the conversation took place: Rex Tillerson, the U.S. secretary of state, and Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister.”

Trump says Mexico should ‘absolutely’ pay for border wall, Politico, Jake Lahut, Friday, 7 July 2017: “Mexico should ‘absolutely’ pay for the border wall between the United States and its southern neighbor, President Donald Trump said Friday during his meeting with his Mexican counterpart, Enrique Peña Nieto. On the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, an Associated Press reporter asked Trump, ‘Do you still want Mexico to pay for the wall?’ The president responded, ‘absolutely,’ according to a pool report. Trump praised Nieto as his ‘friend,’ despite the Mexican president canceling what was supposed to be one of the administration’s first White House guest visits. Nieto has insisted that Mexico will not pay for the border wall, and Trump has floated alternatives, such as paying for the wall with solar panels.”

Hackers Are Targeting Nuclear Facilities, the Homeland Security Department and the F.B.I. say, The New York Times, Nicole Perlroth, Friday, 7 July 2017: “Since May, hackers have been penetrating the computer networks of companies that operate nuclear power stations and other energy facilities, as well as manufacturing plants in the United States and other countries. Among the companies targeted was the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which runs a nuclear power plant near Burlington, Kan., according to security consultants and an urgent joint report issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week. The joint report was obtained by The New York Times and confirmed by security specialists who have been responding to the attacks. It carried an urgent amber warning, the second-highest rating for the sensitivity of the threat. The report did not indicate whether the cyberattacks were an attempt at espionage — such as stealing industrial secrets — or part of a plan to cause destruction. There is no indication that hackers were able to jump from their victims’ computers into the control systems of the facilities, nor is it clear how many facilities were breached.”

Continue reading Week 25, Friday, 7 July – Thursday, 13 July 2017:

Continue reading...

July 7, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
June 30, 2017

Trump, Week 24, Friday, 30 June – Thursday, 6 July 2017 (Days 162-168)

 

 

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. 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, 30 June 2017, Day 162:

 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt will launch a program to ‘critique’ climate science, E&E News, Emily Holden, Friday, 30 June 2017: “U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is leading a formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science using a ‘back-and-forth critique’ by government-recruited experts, according to a senior administration official. The program will use ‘red team, blue team’ exercises to conduct an ‘at-length evaluation of U.S. climate science,’ the official said, referring to a concept developed by the military to identify vulnerabilities in field operations. ‘The administrator believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals … provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science,’ the source said…. The disclosure follows the administration’s suggestions over several days that it supports reviewing climate science outside the normal peer-review process used by scientists. This is the first time agency officials acknowledged that Pruitt has begun that process. The source said Energy Secretary Rick Perry also favors the review. Executives in the coal industry interpret the move as a step toward challenging the endangerment finding, the agency’s legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and other sources. Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., said Pruitt assured him yesterday that he plans to begin reviewing the endangerment finding within months.” See also, Environmental Protection Agency to Give Dissenters a Voice on Climate, No Matter the Consensus, The New York Times, Brad Plumer and Coral Davenport, Friday, 30 June 2017. See also, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is pushing a governmentwide effort to question climate change science, The Washington Post, Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin, published on Saturday, 1 July 2017.

Trump’s voting commission asked states to hand over election data. Some are pushing back. The Washington Post, Mark Berman and David Weigel, Friday, 30 June 2017: “President Trump’s voting commission stumbled into public view this week, issuing a sweeping request for nationwide voter data that drew sharp condemnation from election experts and resistance from more than two dozen states that said they cannot or will not hand over all of the data. The immediate backlash marked the first significant attention to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity since Trump started it last month and followed through on a vow to pursue his own unsubstantiated claims that voter fraud is rampant and cost him the popular vote in the presidential election. The White House has said the commission will embark upon a ‘thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections,’ but experts and voting rights advocates have pilloried Trump for his claims of widespread fraud, which studies and state officials alike have not found. They say that they fear the commission will be used to restrict voting. Those worries intensified this week after the commission sent letters to 50 states and the District on Wednesday asking for a trove of information, including names, dates of birth, voting histories and, if possible, party identifications. The letters also asked for evidence of voter fraud, convictions for election-related crimes and recommendations for preventing voter intimidation — all within 16 days. While the Trump administration has said it is just requesting public information, the letters met with swift — and sometimes defiant — rejection. By Friday, 25 states were partially or entirely refusing to provide the requested information; some said state laws prohibit releasing certain details about voters, while others refused to provide any information because of the commission’s makeup and backstory.” See also, Asked for Voters’ Data, States Give Trump Panel a Bipartisan ‘No,’ The New York Times, Michael Wines, Friday, 30 June 2017. See also, How Trump’s nationwide voter data request could lead to voter suppression, The Washington Post, Christopher Ingraham, Friday, 30 June 2017.

Trump Suggests Repealing the Health Care Law Now and Replacing It Later, The New York Times, Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear, Friday, 30 June 2017: “With Senate Republicans already bogged down over how to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, President Trump on Friday tossed in a new complication with an old idea: The Senate could repeal the health law now, then replace it later. Mr. Trump gave his blessing in a Twitter post after a Republican dissatisfied with the current repeal bill, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, floated the two-stage approach as a backup plan. Mr. Sasse sent a letter to the president and made a pitch on Fox News on Friday as an agreement on a new version of the Senate’s repeal bill remained elusive. Other conservatives quickly picked up the idea — including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and the advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, backed by Charles G. and David H. Koch — presenting a new headache to Senate leaders who are trying to focus their conservative and moderate troops on finding a compromise.”

Continue reading Week 24, Friday, 30 June – Thursday, 6 July 2017:

Continue reading...
June 30, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
June 23, 2017

Trump, Week 23: Friday, 23 June – Thursday, 29 June 2017 (Days 155-161)

 

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. 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 June 2017, Day 155:

 

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault, The Washington Post, Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous, Friday, 23 June 2017: “Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried ‘eyes only’ instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides. Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race. But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump. At that point, the outlines of the Russian assault on the U.S. election were increasingly apparent. Hackers with ties to Russian intelligence services had been rummaging through Democratic Party computer networks, as well as some Republican systems, for more than a year. In July, the FBI had opened an investigation of contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. And on July 22, nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were dumped online by WikiLeaks. But at the highest levels of government, among those responsible for managing the crisis, the first moment of true foreboding about Russia’s intentions arrived with that CIA intelligence. The material was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief, concerned that even that restricted report’s distribution was too broad. The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid…. This account of the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s interference is based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue. The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.”

The emerging timeline of Obama and Russia that is giving Democrats heartburn, The Washington Post, Amber Phillips, Friday, 23 June 2017: “The Washington Post is reporting Friday morning that President Barack Obama knew in August that Russian President Vladimir Putin was waging an extraordinary cyberwar on the U.S. presidential campaign, both to discredit the election and try to help Donald Trump win. The Obama administration did not publicly acknowledge all of this until after the election, in December. In the last few months of the election campaign, behind the scenes — and sometimes publicly — Democrats  in Congress were extremely critical of the president for not telling the public about what was happening. Top members of the Obama administration have since defended that decision as the best of bad choices. Former homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress earlier this week: ‘We were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the — of the election process itself.’ So what really happened? [This article presents] a timeline of how the Obama administration responded to the Russian meddling — and how he was criticized for it.”

Planned Parenthood Battle Could Sway Fortunes of Republican Health Bill, The New York Times, Avantika Chilkoti, Friday, 23 June 2017: “As the Senate barrels toward a vote next week to sever all federal support for Planned Parenthood, the 100-year-old organization is mobilizing furiously to bring down the Republicans’ broader legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act before it reaches President Trump’s desk. The fight over one provision — to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood for a single year — may be tangential to the wider war over the American health care system. But with the Senate so narrowly divided, Mr. Trump’s vow to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement could rest on the hot-button issue of abortion. Republicans can afford to lose only two votes when the final tally comes as soon as Thursday. Moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have expressed deep misgivings over the Planned Parenthood provision, which would deprive the organization of more than 40 percent of its funding, jeopardizing health care for women in states like theirs. But restoring Medicaid reimbursements to the women’s health organization could cost just as many votes on the right.”

Continue reading Week 23, Friday, 23 June – Thursday, 29 June 2017:

Continue reading...

June 23, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
June 16, 2017

Trump, Week 22: Friday, 16 June – Thursday, 22 June 2017 (Days 148-154)

 

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. 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 June 2017, Day 148:

 

Trump Acknowledges He Is Under Investigation in Russia Inquiry, and He Attacks Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in His Latest Rebuke of the Justice Department, The New York Times, Michael D. Shear, Charlie Savage, and Maggie Haberman, Friday, 17 June 2017: “President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday, using an early-morning Twitter rant to condemn the department’s actions as ‘phony’ and ‘sad!’ and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding inquiry into Russian influence of the 2016 election. Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a ‘witch hunt.’ Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ‘I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!’ Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey’s leadership at the F.B.I. ‘Witch hunt,’ Mr. Trump added. The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the White House and its allies to undermine officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even as the Russia investigation proceeds. In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered firing Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president’s, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the ‘deep-state spear aimed at destroying’ the Trump presidency. Inside the White House, those close to the president say he has continued to fume about the actions of Justice Department officials, his anger focused mostly on Mr. Rosenstein for appointing Mr. Mueller and on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a longtime political ally whose decision to recuse himself from the Russia case in March enraged Mr. Trump. What the president wanted out of the investigation was simple, several people close to him said: a public statement that he was not under a cloud. What he got instead were reports of Mr. Mueller’s intention to investigate him for possible obstruction of justice.”

Trump Transition Team Orders Former Aides to Preserve Russia-Related Materials, The New York Times, Adam Goldman, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, and Matthew Rosenberg, Friday, 16 June 2017: “Members of President Trump’s transition team were ordered on Thursday to preserve documents and other materials related to the investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election, according to a memo obtained by The New York Times. The memo, from the transition team’s general counsel’s office, is the latest indication that the investigation’s special counsel, the former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III, is casting a wide net in his inquiry into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Moscow. The memo says former transition team members ‘have a duty to preserve any physical and electronic records that may be related in any way to the subject matter of the pending investigations.’ The so-called preservation order covers any transition team information involving Russia or Ukraine. It also seeks any background investigation records involving the former manager of the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort, and his business partner, Rick Gates; the former foreign policy adviser Carter Page; and the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Flynn was fired for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of a call with the Russian ambassador to the United States. The memorandum also names Roger J. Stone Jr., an informal adviser to Mr. Trump. With the order, the transition team lawyers are indicating that they have reason to believe that the five men’s actions are part of investigations by the Justice Department or the House or Senate Intelligence Committees, or will be.” See also, Full text: Trump transition team memo on keeping documents on Russia and the election, The Washington Post, Washington Post Staff, Friday, 16 June 2017.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issues a cryptic warning about the truth of stories ‘attributed to anonymous’ officials, The Washington Post, Fred Barbash, Friday, 16 June 2017: “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein generated a lot of buzz but little clarity Thursday night with a statement urging Americans to ‘exercise caution’ when evaluating stories attributed to anonymous officials. Why Rosenstein would suddenly make that comment, or any comment, after having made no comment to story after story attributed to anonymous sources, remained a mystery. The full statement read:

Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch of agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.

Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself, Rosenstein is the Justice Department official directly responsible for matters relating to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, including any possible role played by people associated with Donald Trump’s campaign. The statement follows several stories in the past few days in The Washington Post and New York Times quoting unnamed sources on the direction of the probe, now in the hands of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.” See also, Don’t Believe Anonymously Sourced Reports, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Says, The New York Times, Rebecca R. Ruiz, Friday, 16 June 2017.

Continue reading Week 22, Friday, 16 June – Thursday, 22 June 2017:

Continue reading...
June 16, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle, Uncategorized
June 9, 2017

Trump, Week 21: Friday, 9 June – Thursday, 15 June 2017 (Days 141-147)

 

 

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. 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 June 2016, Day 141:

 

Calling Former F.B.I. Director James Comey a Liar, Trump Says He Will Testify Under Oath, The New York Times, Friday, 9 June 2017: “President Trump on Friday accused James B. Comey, the fired F.B.I. director, of lying under oath to Congress, saying he would gladly provide sworn testimony disputing Mr. Comey’s charge that the president forced him out because of his handling of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia. Mr. Trump asserted that the comments on Thursday by Mr. Comey, whom he called ‘a leaker,’ had proved that there was no collusion between his campaign and Moscow, nor any obstruction of justice by the president. He hinted again that he had tapes of his private talks with the former F.B.I. chief that would disprove Mr. Comey’s account, but declined to confirm the existence of any recordings…. He dismissed Mr. Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is investigating whether his campaign worked with Russia to sway the election, as a politically motivated stunt orchestrated by adversaries bitter about his victory in November.” See also, Trump accuses James Comey of lying and says he’d ‘100 percent’ agree to testify in the Russia probe, The Washington Post, Philip Rucker and David Nakamura, Friday, 9 June 2017: “Trump emphatically declared his innocence yet refused to solve a mystery of his own making by stating whether he has tapes of his one-on-one conversations with Comey. Any such recordings could prove which man’s account is accurate, but the president played coy, saying he would wait ‘a fairly short period of time’ to tell the public whether tapes exist, as he first suggested they might in May. ‘Oh, you’re going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer,’ he told reporters. ‘Don’t worry.'” See also, Trump’s Interactions With James Comey: Criminal or Clueless? The New York Times, Carl Hulse, Friday, 9 June 2017: “Speaker Paul D. Ryan sought to excuse President Trump’s overtures to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, about pulling the plug on an investigation as a stumble by a political novice unfamiliar with the strict conventions of the capital. ‘He’s just new to this,’ said Mr. Ryan, noting that Mr. Trump ‘wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols’ of how a president should interact with federal law enforcement agencies. To Mr. Comey, it was the opposite: When Mr. Trump pressed him on the inquiry into the ousted national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, and his contacts with Russian officials, the president was fully aware he was nearing if not overstepping a legal boundary into possible obstruction of justice. Mr. Comey suggested very strongly that Mr. Trump’s acute sensitivity to his behavior was why he cleared the Oval Office of other high-level officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Vice President Mike Pence, before one particularly delicate discussion. As Thursday’s extraordinary Senate Intelligence Committee appearance by Mr. Comey unfolded, it quickly became clear that the interpretation of Mr. Trump’s intentions at that moment and in other crucial interactions with Mr. Comey will be a central element of the investigations by both Congress and the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.” And see also, Trump Calls Former F.B.I. Director James Comey a ‘Leaker.’ What Does That Mean? The New York Times, Charlie Savage, Friday, 9 June 2017.

Republicans’ Secretive Plan for Health Care, The New York Times, Miranda Yaver, Friday, 9 June 2017: “While many Americans make sense of James Comey’s testimony on his meetings with President Trump, Republican senators are quietly moving toward something that has been their party’s goal for nearly eight years: dismantling the Affordable Care Act. The question, of course, is how they plan to replace it. Republicans in the Senate will need 50 votes to pass their version of the American Health Care Act. Several senators have expressed reservations about the House version of the bill, which withdraws federal support for Planned Parenthood and rolls back the Medicaid expansion accomplished by the A.C.A.. Despite the lack of consensus within the party, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, on Wednesday began the process of fast-tracking the bill under Rule 14, which enables the Senate to bypass the committee process and instead move the bill on to the Senate calendar for a vote as soon as it is ready. This will allow the legislation to move much as it did in the House – swiftly and secretively. The Senate aims to vote by the end of the month, and will probably do so with no hearings. This stands in stark contrast to the process leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which included over 100 congressional hearings. The A.H.C.A.’s fast-tracking is not driven by necessity, but rather by the concern that a more transparent legislative process would lay bare the reality that the bill, if passed, would cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance and drive up costs for millions of others.”

Trump Commits the United States to Defending NATO Nations, The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 9 June 2017: “President Trump on Friday reaffirmed the longstanding United States commitment to come to the defense of any NATO members that are attacked, more than two weeks after his refusal to do so during a trip to Europe stirred resentment among America’s traditional allies. The White House also announced that Mr. Trump will travel to Poland next month before heading to Germany for a Group of 20 summit meeting, a visit meant to reassure Eastern European allies at a time when they feel nervous about aggression by Russia after its intervention in Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. European leaders were disappointed last month when Mr. Trump did not explicitly endorse the mutual defense doctrine articulated in Article 5 of the NATO charter while visiting the alliance headquarters in Brussels. A line in his speech was taken out at the last minute, to the chagrin of the president’s national security team. ‘I’m committing the United States to Article 5,’ Mr. Trump said during a news conference on Friday with President Klaus Iohannis of Romania in the White House Rose Garden. ‘And certainly, we are there to protect and that’s one of the reasons that I want people to make sure we have a very, very strong force by paying the kind of money necessary to have that force. But yes, absolutely, I’d be committed to Article 5.’ Article 5 states that ‘an armed attack against one or more’ members ‘in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all’ and has been the bedrock of the trans-Atlantic relationship for nearly seven decades. Mr. Trump raised doubts about the commitment during his campaign last year when he said he would come to the defense only of allies that have fulfilled financial obligations.”

Continue reading Week 21, Friday, 9 June-Thursday, 15 June 2017:

Continue reading...

June 9, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
June 2, 2017

Trump, Week 20: Friday, 2 June-Thursday, 8 June 2017 (Days 134-140)

 

 

 

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. 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 June 2017, Day 134:

 

Trump turns to the Supreme Court to move forward on his travel ban, The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow, Friday, 2 June 2017: “The Trump administration late Thursday asked the Supreme Court to revive the president’s plan to temporarily ban citizens from six mostly Muslim countries, elevating a divisive legal battle involving national security and religious discrimination to the nation’s highest court. Justice Department lawyers asked the court to overturn a decision of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that kept in place a freeze on President Trump’s revised ban. The 10-to-3 ruling last week was one in a series of legal defeats for the administration, as judges across the country have said Trump’s claim of protecting the nation was cover for making good on a campaign promise to ban Muslims from entry into the United States. The government’s filing late Thursday asks the justices to set aside the 4th Circuit ruling and accept the case for oral arguments. It also asks the high court to lift an even broader nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in a separate Hawaii case. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which covers Hawaii, heard the government’s arguments in that case last month, but has not yet ruled. In turning to the high court, Justice Department lawyers said the 4th Circuit should have considered only the language of the executive order and not second-guessed the president’s motivations.” See also, Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Revive Travel Ban, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 2 June 2017. And see also, The Supreme Court’s Options in the Travel Ban Case, The New York Times, Adam Liptak, Friday, 2 June 2017.

World Leaders Lament U.S. Withdrawal From the Paris Climate Accord, but They Say It Won’t Stop Climate Efforts, The Washington Post, Michael D. Shear and Alison Smale, Friday, 2 June 2017: “World leaders vowed Friday to confront climate change in a new international coalition that no longer includes the United States government, moving quickly to reshape global environmental alliances after President Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris climate accord. At the White House, Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, declared that the president had ‘nothing to be apologetic about’ after announcing his decision on Thursday. He hailed Mr. Trump’s actions to ‘put America’s interests first’ and said that ‘exiting Paris does not mean disengagement.’ But in foreign capitals, and in communities across the United States that vowed to continue their efforts to combat the effects of climate change, that is exactly what Mr. Trump’s withdrawal seemed to mean. International officials set in motion plans to leave the American government behind while they look for ways to stave off the direst consequences of the warming of the planet. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Mr. Trump’s actions ‘will not deter all of us who feel obliged to protect this earth.’ Koichi Yamamoto, the Japanese environment minister, told reporters that Mr. Trump had ‘turned his back on the wisdom of human beings.’ Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said the fight against climate change ‘will continue with or without the United States.’ Turning that message quickly into action, European Union leaders on Friday concluded a two-day summit meeting in Brussels with Prime Minister Li Keqiang of China — a not-so-veiled diplomatic threat to Mr. Trump that Europe will find a partner to fight climate change, one way or another.” See also, Trump’s speech withdrawing from the Paris climate accords needs a serious fact check, The Washington Post, Dino Grandoni, Friday, 2 June 2017: [Many of the reasons] “Trump gave for withdrawing seemed at best strained and at worst unfounded.” This article explores some of Trump’s claims and some of the problems with them. See also, For Climate Cause, Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord Is Just One Hurdle Among Many, ProPublica, Andrew Revkin, Friday, 2 June 2017: “Economic forces at work beyond the reach of the global climate agreement present their own enduring challenges.”

Does Donald Trump Still Think Climate Change Is a Hoax? No One at the White House Will Say. The New York Times, Peter Baker, Friday, 2 June 2017: “As a businessman, President Trump was a frequent and scornful critic of the concept of climate change. In the years before running for president, he called it ‘nonexistent,’ ‘mythical’ and a ‘a total con job.’ Whenever snow fell in New York, it seemed, he would mock the idea of global warming. ‘Global warming has been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again,’ he wrote on Twitter in 2012. In another post later that year, he said, ‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.’ A year later, he wrote that ‘global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!’ But on Friday, a day after Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate change accord, the White House refused to say whether the president still considers climate change a hoax. As other leaders around the world vowed to confront climate change without the United States, Mr. Trump’s advisers fanned out to defend his decision and, when pressed, said they did not know his view of the science underlying the debate.”

Continue reading Week 20, Friday, 2 June-Thursday, 8 June 2017:

Continue reading...

June 2, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle, Uncategorized
May 26, 2017

Trump, Week 19: Friday, 26 May – Thursday, 1 June 2017 (Days 127-133)

 

 

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. 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 May 2017, Day 127:

 

Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak told Moscow that Jared Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin, The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller, Friday, 26 May 2017: “Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications. The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. The White House disclosed the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest. Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.” See also, Jared Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia, The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo, Friday, 26 May 2017: “Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, spoke in December with Russia’s ambassador to the United States about establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and Moscow to discuss strategy in Syria and other policy issues, according to three people with knowledge of the discussion.”

Jared Kushner trying to secretly talk to the Russians is the biggest billow of smoke yet, The Washington Post, Amber Phillips, Friday, 26 May 2017: “The Washington Post’s national security team just reported that during the transition, Jared Kushner proposed to the Russians that they set up a secret channel of communication using secure Russian facilities. That’s what the Russian ambassador to the United States told Moscow about a December conversation he had with Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser. This is a damning piece of news for the White House caught under an avalanche of revelations about its dealings with Russia. If it’s true, it’s the most difficult for them to explain in the context of an FBI investigation into Russia meddling in the U.S. election and whether Trump’s campaign helped. Why would Trump’s transition team need to secretly talk to the Russians, using their Russian channels? The White House declined to comment.”

Sources: Then-FBI Director James Comey acted on Russian intelligence he knew was fake, CNN Politics, Dana Bash, Shimon Prokupecz, and Gloria Borger, Friday, 26 May 2017: “Then-FBI Director James Comey knew that a critical piece of information relating to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email was fake — created by Russian intelligence — but he feared that if it became public it would undermine the probe and the Justice Department itself, according to multiple officials with knowledge of the process. As a result, Comey acted unilaterally last summer to publicly declare the investigation over — without consulting then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch — while at the same time stating that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information. His press conference caused a firestorm of controversy and drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Comey’s actions based on what he knew was Russian disinformation offer a stark example of the way Russian interference impacted the decisions of the highest-level US officials during the 2016 campaign. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that this Russian intelligence was unreliable. US officials now tell CNN that Comey and FBI officials actually knew early on that this intelligence was indeed false. In fact, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe went to Capitol Hill Thursday to push back on the notion that the FBI was duped, according to a source familiar with a meeting McCabe had with members of the Senate intelligence committee.”

Continue reading Week 19, Friday, 26 May-Thursday, 1 June 2017:

Continue reading...

May 26, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
May 19, 2017

Trump, Week 18: Friday, 19 May – Thursday, 25 May 2017 (Days 120-126)

 

 

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. 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 May 2017, Day 120:

 

Russia probe reaches current Trump White House official, people familiar with the case say, The Washington Post, Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky, Friday, 19 May 2017: “The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter. The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official. The revelation comes as the investigation appears to be entering a more overtly active phase, with investigators shifting from work that has remained largely hidden from the public to conducting interviews and using a grand jury to issue subpoenas. The intensity of the probe is expected to accelerate in the coming weeks, the people said. The sources emphasized that investigators remain keenly interested in people who previously wielded influence in the Trump campaign and administration but are no longer part of it, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.”

Trump Told Russian Officials in the Oval Office on 10 May That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From the Russian Investigation, The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo, Maggie Haberman, and Matthew Rosenberg, Friday, 19 May 2017: “President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting. ‘I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,’ Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. ‘I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.’ Mr. Trump added, ‘I’m not under investigation.’  The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing. The comments represented an extraordinary moment in the investigation, which centers in part on the administration’s contacts with Russian officials: A day after firing the man leading that inquiry, Mr. Trump disparaged him — to Russian officials. The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.”

First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say, CNN Politics, Gloria Borger, Pamela Brown, Jim Sciutto, Marshall Cohen, and Eric Lichtblau, Friday, 19 May 2017: “Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN. The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump’s national security adviser, current and former governments officials said. ‘This was a five-alarm fire from early on,’ one former Obama administration official said, ‘the way the Russians were talking about him.’ Another former administration official said Flynn was viewed as a potential national security problem. The conversations picked up by US intelligence officials indicated the Russians regarded Flynn as an ally, sources said. That relationship developed throughout 2016, months before Flynn was caught on an intercepted call in December speaking with Russia’s ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak. That call, and Flynn’s changing story about it, ultimately led to his firing as Trump’s first national security adviser. Officials cautioned, however, that the Russians might have exaggerated their sway with Trump’s team during those conversations.”

Continue reading Week 18, Friday, 19 May – Thursday, 25 May 2017, Days 120-126:

Continue reading...

May 19, 2017 Filed Under: Trump administration/Republican House and Senate/Supreme Court, Trump: A Daily Chronicle
May 12, 2017

The Last Person You’d Expect to Die in Childbirth

Nina Martin, ProPublica, and Renee Montagne, NPR, The Last Person You’d Expect to Die in Childbirth, Friday, 12 May 2017. “The ability to protect the health of mothers and babies in childbirth is a basic measure of a society’s development. Yet every year in the U.S., 700 to 900 women die from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes, and some 65,000 nearly die — by many measures, the worst record in the developed world. American women are more than three times as likely as Canadian women to die in the maternal period (defined by the Centers for Disease Control as the start of pregnancy to one year after delivery or termination), six times as likely to die as Scandinavians. In every other wealthy country, and many less affluent ones, maternal mortality rates have been falling; in Great Britain, the journal Lancet recently noted, the rate has declined so dramatically that ‘a man is more likely to die while his partner is pregnant than she is.’ But in the U.S., maternal deaths increased from 2000 to 2014. In a recent analysis by the CDC Foundation, nearly 60 percent of such deaths were preventable.”

Continue reading...
May 12, 2017 Filed Under: Health Care/Medical Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,
« Go back
Show More »