Pages

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Senate Intelligence Committee: Russia Meddling In 2016 Election

The following is information concerning the release of a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee.  This committee is bipartisan, chaired by Republican Marco Rubio. In addition to Rubio and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (Democrat), there are 7 Republican and 6 Democratic members of the committee: Republicans Richard Burr, James Risch, Susan Collins, Roy Blunt, Tom Cotton, John Cornyn, and Ben Sasse; and Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich, Angus King (Independent), Kamala Harris, and Michael Bennet, Colorado.

Here is the statement released on August 18, 2020:

Miami, FL — U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Acting Chairman Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) released the fifth and final volume of the Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation titled, Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities,” which examines Russia’s attempts to gain influence in the American political system during the 2016 elections.

Rubio released the following statement and a video message, which is available for download here:

“Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy. We interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over one million pages of documents. No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election.

“What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling. And we discovered deeply troubling actions taken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, particularly their acceptance and willingness to rely on the ‘Steele Dossier’ without verifying its methodology or sourcing. 

“Now, as we head towards the 2020 elections, China and Iran have joined Russia in attempts to disrupt our democracy, exacerbate societal divisions, and sow doubts about the legitimacy and integrity of our institutions, our electoral process and our republic.

“We must do better in 2020. The Committee’s five reports detail the signs and symptoms of that interference and show us how to protect campaigns, state and local entities, our public discourse, and our democratic institutions. I join with Vice Chairman Warner in urging everyone — our colleagues, those in the Administration, state and local elections officials, the media, and the American public — to read them and take the recommendations seriously.”

You can read “Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities” here.

Key Findings:

  • The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

  • WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort.

  • The FBI gave the Steele Dossier unjustified credence, based on an incomplete understanding of Steele’s past reporting record. The FBI used the dossier in a FISA application and renewals, and advocated for it to be included in the Intelligence Community Assessment before taking the necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele’s credibility.  

  • The FBI lacked a formal or considered process for escalating their warnings about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack within the organization of the DNC.

  • The Committee assesses that at least two participants in a June 9, 2016, meeting with Trump Campaign officials, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services.  The Committee, however, found no reliable evidence that information of benefit to the Campaign was transmitted at the meeting, or that then-candidate Trump had foreknowledge of the meeting.

  • The Committee found no evidence that anyone associated with the Trump Campaign had any substantive private conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the April 27, 2016, Trump speech held at the Mayflower Hotel.

  • Paul Manafort’s presence on the Trump Campaign and proximity to then-Candidate Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign.

  • George Papadopoulos was not a witting cooptee of the Russian intelligence services, but nonetheless presented a prime intelligence target and potential vector for malign Russian influence.

  • Russia took advantage of members of the Transition Team’s relative inexperience in government, opposition to Obama Administration policies, and Trump’s desire to deepen ties with Russia to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct diplomacy.

Read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s previous reports:

GOP, Cult Of Personality

Well, the Republican National Committee has made it official: They're a cult of personality.

Every (normal) year, the two major parties get a committee together that hammers out a party platform: a formal set of principal goals which are supported by the party. This year, the Democratic party did so, as usual; Google "2020 Democratic Party Platform" if you want to look at the 92-page PDF. It's a useful process, since competing wings of the party have to come up with a compromise document that will satisfy the party generally. 

The Republicans, on the other hand, have taken a different approach this year. They can't possibly agree on any part of a platform -- health care, immigration, the economy, climate change, foreign policy, trade policy -- literally anything. Why not? Because they have no idea where Trump stands on any of these issues today -- and even if they knew, chances are excellent he'll take a different position tomorrow.

So instead of coming up with a platform, they have instead essentially thrown up their hands and said, "BE IT RESOLVED THAT: We pledge allegiance to our Glorious Leader, Trump the Magnificent, and will do whatever he wants. Oh, and if you want to bring up an amendment to this resolution, fuhgeddaboudit."

 Here's the text of the document:

WHEREAS, the media has outrageously misrepresented the implications of the RNC not adopting a new platform in 2020 and continues to engage in misleading advocacy for the failed policies of the Obama-Biden Administration, rather than providing the public with unbiased reporting of facts; and

WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President's America-first agenda;

RESOVLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention;

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention calls on the media to engage in accurate and unbiased reporting, especially as it relates to the strong support of the RNC for President Trump and his Administration; and

RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order.

Saturday, August 22, 2020

They All Knew.

They all knew: 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1296881001168158720 

Q: How do you sleep at night? 

A: Booze and pills.

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

A Modern History of the NRA

New York Attorney General Letitia James has launched a lawsuit to disband the National Rifle Association (NRA). Here is a summary of how the NRA became what it is today, from Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter, "Letters from an American":

The NRA was chartered in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship of Americans who might be called on to fight another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting. By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular sport.

In the 1930s, amid fears of organized crime, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons, prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children, to require all dealers to be licensed, and to require background checks before delivery. NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns, but worked hard to distinguish between, on the one hand, law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and on the other hand, criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. The NRA backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade.

But in the mid-1970s, a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee in 1975, and two years later elected a president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.”

The NRA had gone into politics. Its officials now opposed all limits on gun ownership, even though basic safety measures have always been popular, even within the NRA’s own membership. In 1980, the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time ever, standing behind Ronald Reagan. Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000, the NRA was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election.

In 2016, donations to the NRA jumped sharply. While in 2012, it spent $9 million, and in 2014 it spent $13 million, in 2016, it spent more than $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.

In February 2018, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Ron Wyden (D-OR), began an investigation of the NRA, its donors, and its role in the 2016 election.

On July 15, 2018, the federal government arrested Russian national Maria Butina and charged her with “conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior registration.” Butina and Russian government official Alexander Torshin began coming to the U.S. for NRA events in 2014. Butina moved to the U.S. in 2016 on a student visa, intending to gain access to the American political system through the NRA and to push U.S. policy closer to Russian interests.

Butina became romantically involved with Republican political operative Paul Erickson, who had worked for Republican insurgent candidate Pat Buchanan in 1992, was friends with criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and later represented John Wayne Bobbitt in media deals after Bobbitt’s wife Lorena cut off his penis with a kitchen knife. (Surgeons reattached it.)

Erickson promised to help Butina gain access to Republican lawmakers. When federal investigators began to monitor Butina, he came to their attention, and they discovered his businesses were designed to defraud investors. In November 2019, Erickson pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in an unrelated case. Last month, he was sentenced to seven years in federal prison.

But when their NRA scheme was still intact, Butina and Torshin attended NRA annual meetings and other NRA events at the invitation of its leaders, who invited the two to events like the National Prayer Breakfast, where they could meet Republican lawmakers. In turn, Butina and Torshin invited NRA leaders to Moscow, where they met with leaders who promised lucrative business opportunities with Russian oligarchs, including the opportunity to produce weapons for the Russian military. Some of the Russians they met were under sanctions from the U.S. government.

In April 2019, Butina pleaded guilty to working as a foreign agent without registering with the U.S. Department of Justice. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison, a sentence Russian President Vladimir Putin, who insisted she was being railroaded, called “arbitrary.” In September 2019, the Democrats on the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance outlined the work of Butina and Torshin in the U.S., and called the NRA “a foreign asset.”

Butina served 15 months in the Tallahassee Federal Correction Institution before being deported to Moscow. Reporters from RT, the state-sponsored Russian media outlet, traveled on the plane with her. Supporters greeted her at the Moscow airport with flowers and cheers, giving her a hero’s welcome. Once back in Moscow, she said she had been pressured to plead guilty to a crime, but all she was doing was “hosting friendship dinners.” Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, told ABC News: “the only thing she was doing was supporting bilateral relationship and friendship between peoples. ... She did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong.”

There is at least some reason to wonder if the sudden jump in NRA donations in 2016 had something to do with the Russian oligarchs who were talking with its leaders. When Senator Wyden requested information about their donors, NRA leaders stated categorically they did not accept money from “foreign persons or entities in connection with United States elections,” which is illegal. But then they said it had, in fact, accepted less than $1000 from Torshin, for a membership. And then they told Wyden that it had actually taken money from 25 Russian individuals for memberships or magazine subscriptions, totaling about $2512.85.

This last letter to the senator concluded, “We believe this and our previous letters have provided enough information to address any legitimate concerns about these issues. Therefore, given the extraordinarily time-consuming and burdensome nature of your requests, we must respectfully decline to engage in this beyond the clear answers we have already provided.” Wyden noted that “the notion that all of these important oligarchs who had involvement with the N.R.A. and were close to Putin were spending money on a few magazine subscriptions doesn’t strike me as very plausible.”

The lawsuit announced this morning concerned a different kind of NRA spending. For six and a half years, NRA leaders have misspent funds, lavishing the money of the nonprofit organization on their own lifestyles. In 2015, the NRA had a surplus of almost $28 million. By 2018, it was running a $36 million deficit. This spending came to light after Republican operative Oliver North, a key player in the Iran-Contra Scandal, became president of the organization in September 2018. In April 2019, North called for an investigation into the NRA’s finances and asked longtime chief executive of the organization Wayne LaPierre to resign. LaPierre responded that North was trying to get him out of the organization by threatening to release “damaging” information about him. North resigned.

Now New York Attorney General Letitia James has taken up the issue. She sued LaPierre. She also sued John Frazer, the organization’s general counsel; Josh Powell, a former top lieutenant of LaPierre; and Wilson Phillips, a former chief financial officer. Their trips to the Bahamas, Nieman Marcus clothing, and nights at the Four Season cost the organization $64 million over the past three years. James wants to bar all four men from running non-profits in New York in the future. “It’s clear that the NRA has been failing to carry out its stated mission for many, many years and instead has operated as a breeding ground for greed, abuse and brazen illegality,” James said. “Enough was enough. We needed to step in and dissolve this corporation.”

As James announced her lawsuit, the Washington D.C. Attorney General, Karl Racine, sued NRA Foundation, the organization’s charitable arm that teaches, for example, firearm safety, say it has been diverting funds to the NRA to pay for top official’s spending sprees.

The NRA immediately countersued, claiming James’s lawsuit was about politics, not the law, and that James is violating the First Amendment to the Constitution, which mandates that the government must not hamper free speech. Mr. LaPierre said: “This is an unconstitutional, premeditated attack aiming to dismantle and destroy the N.R.A. — the fiercest defender of America’s freedom at the ballot box for decades. We’re ready for the fight. Bring it on.”

Asked to comment, Trump said “That’s a very terrible thing that just happened. I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life.”

Saturday, August 1, 2020

Trump Apologizes!

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Sunday, July 26, 2020

A Trump Campaign Ad, Deconstructed



The days of manipulating images and lies by Brad Parscale, Trump's erstwhile campaign manager, have ended; the days of manipulating images and lies by Bill Stepien, Trump's new guy, have begun. The image above is a beautiful illustration of the toxic stew of lies we can expect between now and November 3. Click here for an article at The Bulwark by Jonathan V. Last entitled "Trump's New Ad Is Amazing."

The obvious implication of the scene on the right, of a police officer apparently being beaten by "evil hippie scum," is that this is the kind of violence taking place on the streets of American cities today, and what is to be expected under a Biden administration. Just one thing: it's not a photo of an American city today. It was taken on February 14, 2014.

In Ukraine.

And the crowd is not "evil hippie scum" beating a helpless representative of Truth, Justice, and The American Way: it's pro-democracy demonstrators beating "a member of the riot police who had been brought in to try to protect the authoritarian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was attempting to turn Ukraine into a one-party state by extralegal means."

Interesting coincidence: One of the extralegal means Yanukovych employed was a specialized federal internal police force, the Berkut, which answered directly to him and was used to assault his political opponents and tamper with elections.

Eight days after this photo was taken, "an overwhelming majority of Ukraine’s parliament—328 of 447 members—voted to remove Yanukovych from office." And three days after that, having fled the country, Yanukovych -- who had been Putin's puppet in Ukraine -- was given asylum in Moscow.

After that, Yanukovych was charged in absentia with treason against the country he had led -- "Not in the Fox News sense. They didn’t go on TV and say “Oh yeah, that guy. He was the worst. Total traitor. Human scum.” No, this was an actual criminal charge that carried severe consequences should Yanukovych ever set foot in Ukraine again.

Interesting coincidence: In 2004, when Yanukovych was running for president so that he could sell out his country to the Russians, he hired a veteran political campaigner skilled in the art of dirty tricks, honed over a 35-year career in the murky depths of Republican politics -- Paul Manafort.

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Wow! White Lady Speaks Out!

I just found this while blundering around on the Internet. It's a white lady speaking about the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. It's really worth watching!

Paste this into the address bar in your browser.

https://www.facebook.com/ms.melissa.mccrery/videos/10222991210267770

Sunday, July 19, 2020

The Iraq Debacle Revisited

Click here for an article at The New York Times by Robert Draper, entitled "Colin Powell Still Wants Answers."

It's a good telling of the story of how Powell came to give the speech he did at the United Nations making the case for war with Iraq.

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Coronavirus, If States Were Countries

If states were countries, this graph from July 8, 2020, shows that of the 25 countries with the most confirmed new cases of Covid-19 over the last week, 15 would be states; 10 would be countries around the world. Arizona, Florida, and South Carolina would be 1-2-3, followed by Bahrain; then Louisiana, followed by Qatar and Oman. The next five would be Alabama, Nevada, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia (the U.S. state, not the country).

Monday, July 6, 2020

Jordan Klepper v. Trump Supporters

Here's a collection of Jordan Klepper speaking to people at Trump rallies (12 minutes, 40 seconds):

Saturday, July 4, 2020

Covid-19 Compared To The Spanish Flu, 1918

Click here for an article at Politico by Joshua Zeitz, entitled "Rampant Lies, Fake Cures and Not Enough Beds: What the Spanish Flu Debacle Can Teach Us About Coronavirus" -- some striking parallels between the situation 100 years ago and today.

A Jim Jefferies Takedown Of QAnon

Paste this address into your web browser:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1092882680931278849

6 minutes, 14 seconds. Click here for an article at The Atlantic by Adrienne LaFrance, entitled "The Prophecies of Q," subtitled "American conspiracy theories are entering a dangerous new phase."

Friday, July 3, 2020

Paste this into your browser address bar:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1278904549718331392

and treat yourself to 3 minutes and 48 seconds of a history lesson from Donald Trump -- history that you never knew existed! Donald Trump's Guide to History!

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

The Secret To Deep Cleaning

Click here for an article at The New York Times by Tim McKeough entitled "The Secret to Deep Cleaning."
It’s possible to make your own all-purpose cleaner, Ms. Fierman said: “Add half a cup of white vinegar, one pint of rubbing alcohol, one teaspoon of dish soap and enough water to make a gallon.” Then pour the mixture into an empty spray bottle.

“This is a really good cleaning product for the whole house,” she said. “It’s eco-friendly, it’s hypoallergenic, and it’s really effective.”

If you don’t have rubbing alcohol, try mixing equal parts white vinegar and water, and adding a couple of drops of dish soap, she suggested.
Lots of tips:

To make the job more manageable — and for a quick sense of satisfaction — start by focusing on the room that needs the attention, whether it’s a bedroom, bathroom or kitchen.

“When you open up the drain, there is usually some nasty stuff inside, because hair does get through, and it gets dirty, moldy and stinky,” Ms. Dulude said.

To take care of it, put on gloves and pull out the gunk, perhaps using the end of a wire clothes hanger. “Then pour a few spoons of baking soda and vinegar in, and let it bubble up,” she said. “Later, drain it with hot water.”

The areas where tiled walls meet bathtubs and shower enclosures can be breeding grounds for mold and mildew. To clean those areas, Ms. Fierman recommended using a specialty tile-and-grout cleaner like Tilex.

Apply the cleaner, let it sit and then scrub with an old toothbrush or other soft brush, she said.

Giving the cleaner time to work before scrubbing will make the job easier. “Letting the chemical penetrate is one of the key tricks” professionals use for difficult cleaning jobs, Ms. Modaressi said.

Susan Rice: "the White House is being run by liars and wimps"

Click here for an opinion piece in The New York Times by Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser from 2013 until 2017, entitled "Why Does Trump Put Russia First?" This of course is in response to the story in the NYT about Russia paying a bounty to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan for killing coalition troops.

This is how Rice says she would have reacted if she had been given the unverified, raw intelligence when she was NSA:
Contrary to the spin-masters in the White House today, I would not have waited until we had absolute certainty. I would have said, “Mr. President, I want to make sure you are aware that we have troubling reporting that Russia is paying the Taliban to kill our forces in Afghanistan. I will work with the intelligence community to ensure the information is solid. In the meantime, I will convene the national security team to get you some options for how to respond to this apparent major escalation in Russia’s hostile actions.”

If later the president decided, as Mr. Trump did, that he wanted to talk with President Vladimir Putin of Russia at least six times over the next several weeks and invite him to join the Group of 7 summit over the objections of our allies, I would have thrown a red flag: “Mr. President, I want to remind you that we believe the Russians are killing American soldiers. This is not the time to hand Putin an olive branch. It’s the time to punish him.”

This is what would have happened in any prior administration of either political party.

That it apparently did not is deeply troubling and raises myriad questions. If Mr. Trump was told about Russian actions, why did he not respond? If he was not told, why not? Are his top advisers utterly incompetent? Are they too scared to deliver bad news to Mr. Trump, particularly about Russia? Is Mr. Trump running a rogue foreign policy utterly divorced from U.S. national interests? If so, why?
So what are we to make of this situation?
At best, our commander in chief is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.

Bernstein Bombshell: Trump Is A Nincompoop

I'm reproducing here, in full, a fairly long article by Carl Bernstein at CNN.com entitled "From pandering to Putin to abusing allies and ignoring his own advisers, Trump's phone calls alarm US officials." This article is hard to summarize because it's loaded with good stuff that I don't want to leave out:

 In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.

The calls caused former top Trump deputies -- including national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and White House chief of staff John Kelly, as well as intelligence officials -- to conclude that the President was often "delusional," as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders. The sources said there was little evidence that the President became more skillful or competent in his telephone conversations with most heads of state over time. Rather, he continued to believe that he could either charm, jawbone or bully almost any foreign leader into capitulating to his will, and often pursued goals more attuned to his own agenda than what many of his senior advisers considered the national interest.

These officials' concerns about the calls, and particularly Trump's deference to Putin, take on new resonance with reports the President may have learned in March that Russia had offered the Taliban bounties to kill US troops in Afghanistan -- and yet took no action. CNN's sources said there were calls between Putin and Trump about Trump's desire to end the American military presence in Afghanistan but they mentioned no discussion of the supposed Taliban bounties. By far the greatest number of Trump's telephone discussions with an individual head of state were with Erdogan, who sometimes phoned the White House at least twice a week and was put through directly to the President on standing orders from Trump, according to the sources. Meanwhile, the President regularly bullied and demeaned the leaders of America's principal allies, especially two women: telling Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom she was weak and lacked courage; and telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel that she was "stupid."

Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state, including Saudi Arabia's autocratic royal heir Mohammed bin Salman and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, about his own wealth, genius, "great" accomplishments as President, and the "idiocy" of his Oval Office predecessors, according to the sources.

In his conversations with both Putin and Erdogan, Trump took special delight in trashing former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and suggested that dealing directly with him -- Trump -- would be far more fruitful than during previous administrations. "They didn't know BS," he said of Bush and Obama -- one of several derisive tropes the sources said he favored when discussing his predecessors with the Turkish and Russian leaders.

The full, detailed picture drawn by CNN's sources of Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders is consistent with the basic tenor and some substantive elements of a limited number of calls described by former national security adviser John Bolton in his book, "The Room Where It Happened." But the calls described to CNN cover a far longer period than Bolton's tenure, are much more comprehensive — and seemingly more damning -- in their sweep.

Like Bolton, CNN's sources said that the President seemed to continually conflate his own personal interests -- especially for purposes of re-election and revenge against perceived critics and political enemies -- with the national interest. To protect the anonymity of those describing the calls for this report, CNN will not reveal their job titles nor quote them at length directly. More than a dozen officials either listened to the President's phone calls in real time or were provided detailed summaries and rough-text recording printouts of the calls soon after their completion, CNN's sources said. The sources were interviewed by CNN repeatedly over a four-month period extending into June.

The sources did cite some instances in which they said Trump acted responsibly and in the national interest during telephone discussions with some foreign leaders. CNN reached out to Kelly, McMaster and Tillerson for comment and received no response as of Monday afternoon. Mattis did not comment.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment before this story published. After publication, White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews said, "President Trump is a world class negotiator who has consistently furthered America's interests on the world stage. From negotiating the phase one China deal and the USMCA to NATO allies contributing more and defeating ISIS, President Trump has shown his ability to advance America's strategic interests." One person familiar with almost all the conversations with the leaders of Russia, Turkey, Canada, Australia and western Europe described the calls cumulatively as 'abominations' so grievous to US national security interests that if members of Congress heard from witnesses to the actual conversations or read the texts and contemporaneous notes, even many senior Republican members would no longer be able to retain confidence in the President.

Attacking key ally leaders -- especially women

The insidious effect of the conversations comes from Trump's tone, his raging outbursts at allies while fawning over authoritarian strongmen, his ignorance of history and lack of preparation as much as it does from the troubling substance, according to the sources. While in office, then- Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats expressed worry to subordinates that Trump's telephone discussions were undermining the coherent conduct of foreign relations and American objectives around the globe, one of CNN's sources said. And in recent weeks, former chief of staff Kelly has mentioned the damaging impact of the President's calls on US national security to several individuals in private.

Two sources compared many of the President's conversations with foreign leaders to Trump's recent press "briefings" on the coronavirus pandemic: free form, fact-deficient stream-of-consciousness ramblings, full of fantasy and off-the-wall pronouncements based on his intuitions, guesswork, the opinions of Fox News TV hosts and social media misinformation. In addition to Merkel and May, the sources said, Trump regularly bullied and disparaged other leaders of the western alliance during his phone conversations -- including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison -- in the same hostile and aggressive way he discussed the coronavirus with some of America's governors.

Next to Erdogan, no foreign leader initiated more calls with Trump than Macron, the sources said, with the French President often trying to convince Trump to change course on environmental and security policy matters -- including climate change and US withdrawal from the Iranian multilateral nuclear accord.

Macron usually got "nowhere" on substantive matters, while Trump became irritated at the French President's stream of requests and subjected him to self-serving harangues and lectures that were described by one source as personalized verbal "whippings," especially about France and other countries not meeting NATO spending targets, their liberal immigration policies or their trade imbalances with the US.

But his most vicious attacks, said the sources, were aimed at women heads of state. In conversations with both May and Merkel, the President demeaned and denigrated them in diatribes described as "near-sadistic" by one of the sources and confirmed by others. "Some of the things he said to Angela Merkel are just unbelievable: he called her 'stupid,' and accused her of being in the pocket of the Russians ... He's toughest [in the phone calls] with those he looks at as weaklings and weakest with the ones he ought to be tough with."

The calls "are so unusual," confirmed a German official, that special measures were taken in Berlin to ensure that their contents remained secret. The official described Trump's behavior with Merkel in the calls as "very aggressive" and said that the circle of German officials involved in monitoring Merkel's calls with Trump has shrunk: "It's just a small circle of people who are involved and the reason, the main reason, is that they are indeed problematic."

Trump's conversations with May, the UK Prime Minister from 2016 to 2019, were described as "humiliating and bullying," with Trump attacking her as "a fool" and spineless in her approach to Brexit, NATO and immigration matters. "He'd get agitated about something with Theresa May, then he'd get nasty with her on the phone call," One source said. "It's the same interaction in every setting -- coronavirus or Brexit -- with just no filter applied."

Merkel remained calm and outwardly unruffled in the face of Trump's attacks —"like water off a duck's back," in the words of one source -- and she regularly countered his bluster with recitations of fact. The German official quoted above said that during Merkel's visit to the White House two years ago, Trump displayed "very questionable behavior" that "was quite aggressive ... [T]he Chancellor indeed stayed calm, and that's what she does on the phone."

Prime Minister May, in contrast, became "flustered and nervous" in her conversations with the President. "He clearly intimidated her and meant to," said one of CNN's sources. In response to a request for comment about Trump's behavior in calls with May, the UK's Downing Street referred CNN to its website. The site lists brief descriptions of the content of some calls and avoids any mention of tone or tension. The French embassy in Washington declined to comment, while the Russian and Turkish embassies did not respond to requests for comment.

Concerns over calls with Putin and Erdogan

The calls with Putin and Erdogan were particularly egregious in terms of Trump almost never being prepared substantively and thus leaving him susceptible to being taken advantage of in various ways, according to the sources -- in part because those conversations (as with most heads of state), were almost certainly recorded by the security services and other agencies of their countries.

In his phone exchanges with Putin, the sources reported, the President talked mostly about himself, frequently in over-the-top, self-aggrandizing terms: touting his "unprecedented" success in building the US economy; asserting in derisive language how much smarter and "stronger" he is than "the imbeciles" and "weaklings" who came before him in the presidency (especially Obama); reveling in his experience running the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, and obsequiously courting Putin's admiration and approval. Putin "just outplays" him, said a high-level administration official -- comparing the Russian leader to a chess grandmaster and Trump to an occasional player of checkers. While Putin "destabilizes the West," said this source, the President of the United States "sits there and thinks he can build himself up enough as a businessman and tough guy that Putin will respect him." (At times, the Putin-Trump conversations sounded like "two guys in a steam bath," a source added.)

In numerous calls with Putin that were described to CNN, Trump left top national security aides and his chiefs of staff flabbergasted, less because of specific concessions he made than because of his manner -- inordinately solicitous of Putin's admiration and seemingly seeking his approval -- while usually ignoring substantive policy expertise and important matters on the standing bilateral agenda, including human rights; and an arms control agreement, which never got dealt with in a way that advanced shared Russian and American goals that both Putin and Trump professed to favor, CNN's sources said.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has touted the theme of "America First" as his north star in foreign policy, advancing the view that America's allies and adversaries have taken economic advantage of US goodwill in trade. And that America's closest allies need to increase their share of collective defense spending. He frequently justifies his seeming deference to Putin by arguing that Russia is a major world player and that it is in the United States' interest to have a constructive and friendly relationship -- requiring a reset with Moscow through his personal dialogue with Putin.

In separate interviews, two high-level administration officials familiar with most of the Trump-Putin calls said the President naively elevated Russia -- a second-rate totalitarian state with less than 4% of the world's GDP -- and its authoritarian leader almost to parity with the United States and its President by undermining the tougher, more realistic view of Russia expressed by the US Congress, American intelligence agencies and the long-standing post-war policy consensus of the US and its European allies. "He [Trump] gives away the advantage that was hard won in the Cold War," said one of the officials -- in part by "giving Putin and Russia a legitimacy they never had," the official said. "He's given Russia a lifeline -- because there is no doubt that they're a declining power ... He's playing with something he doesn't understand and he's giving them power that they would use [aggressively]."

Both officials cited Trump's decision to pull US troops out of Syria -- a move that benefited Turkey as well as Russia -- as perhaps the most grievous example. "He gave away the store," one of them said.

The frequency of the calls with Erdogan -- in which the Turkish president continually pressed Trump for policy concessions and other favors -- was especially worrisome to McMaster, Bolton and Kelly, the more so because of the ease with which Erdogan bypassed normal National Security Council protocols and procedures to reach the President, said two of the sources.

Erdogan became so adept at knowing when to reach the President directly that some White House aides became convinced that Turkey's security services in Washington were using Trump's schedule and whereabouts to provide Erdogan with information about when the President would be available for a call.

On some occasions Erdogan reached him on the golf course and Trump would delay play while the two spoke at length. Two sources described the President as woefully uninformed about the history of the Syrian conflict and the Middle East generally, and said he was often caught off guard, and lacked sufficient knowledge to engage on equal terms in nuanced policy discussion with Erdogan. "Erdogan took him to the cleaners," said one of the sources.

The sources said that deleterious US policy decisions on Syria -- including the President's directive to pull US forces out of the country, which then allowed Turkey to attack Kurds who had helped the US fight ISIS and weakened NATO's role in the conflict -- were directly linked to Erdogan's ability to get his way with Trump on the phone calls.

Trump occasionally became angry at Erdogan -- sometimes because of demands that Turkey be granted preferential trade status, and because the Turkish leader would not release an imprisoned American evangelical pastor, Andrew Brunson, accused of 'aiding terrorism' in the 2016 coup that attempted to overthrow Erdogan. Brunson was eventually released in October 2018.

Despite the lack of advance notice for many of Erdogan's calls, full sets of contemporaneous notes from designated notetakers at the White House exist, as well as rough voice-generated computer texts of the conversations, the sources said.

According to one high-level source, there are also existing summaries and conversation-readouts of the President's discussions with Erdogan that might reinforce Bolton's allegations against Trump in the so-called "Halkbank case," involving a major Turkish bank with suspected ties to Erdogan and his family. That source said the matter was raised in more than one telephone conversation between Erdogan and Trump.

Bolton wrote in his book that in December 2018, at Erdogan's urging, Trump offered to interfere in an investigation by then-US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman into the Turkish bank, which was accused of violating US sanctions on Iran.

"Trump then told Erdogan he would take care of things, explaining that the Southern District prosecutors were not his people, but were Obama people, a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people," Bolton wrote. Berman's office eventually brought an indictment against the bank in October 2019 for fraud, money laundering and other offenses related to participation in a multibillion-dollar scheme to evade the US sanctions on Iran. On June 20, Trump fired Berman -- whose office is also investigating Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer -- after the prosecutor refused to resign at Attorney General William Barr's direction.

Unlike Bolton, CNN's sources did not assert or suggest specifically that Trump's calls with Erdogan might have been grounds for impeachment because of possible evidence of unlawful conduct by the President. Rather, they characterized Trump's calls with heads of state in the aggregate as evidence of Trump's general "unfitness" for the presidency on grounds of temperament and incompetence, an assertion Bolton made as well in an interview to promote his book with ABC News last week: "I don't think he's fit for office. I don't think he has the competence to carry out the job," Bolton said.

Family feedback and grievances fuel Trump's approach

CNN spoke to sources familiar with the President's phone calls repeatedly over a four-month period. In their interviews, the sources took great care not to disclose specific national security information and classified details -- but rather described the broad contents of many of the calls, and the overall tenor and methodology of Trump's approach to his telephone discussions with foreign leaders.

In addition to rough, voice-generated software transcription, almost all of Trump's telephone conversations with Putin, Erdogan and leaders of the western alliance were supplemented and documented by extensive contemporaneous note-taking (and, often, summaries) prepared by Fiona Hill, deputy assistant to the President and senior NSC director for Europe and Russia until her resignation last year. Hill listened to most of the President's calls with Putin, Erdogan and the European leaders, according to her closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last November.

Elements of that testimony by Hill, if re-examined by Congressional investigators, might provide a detailed road-map of the President's extensively-documented conversations, the sources said. White House and intelligence officials familiar with the voice-generated transcriptions and underlying documents agreed that their contents could be devastating to the President's standing with members of the Congress of both parties -- and the public -- if revealed in great detail. (There is little doubt that Trump would invoke executive privilege to keep the conversations private. However, some former officials with detailed knowledge of many of the conversations might be willing to testify about them, sources said.) In one of the earliest calls between Putin and Trump, the President's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were in the room to listen — joining McMaster, Tillerson, Hill, and a State Department aide to Tillerson.

"The call was all over the place," said an NSC deputy who read a detailed summary of the conversation -- with Putin speaking substantively and at length, and Trump propping himself up in short autobiographical bursts of bragging, self-congratulation and flattery toward Putin. As described to CNN, Kushner and Ivanka Trump were immediately effusive in their praise of how Trump had handled the call -- while Tillerson (who knew Putin well from his years in Russia as an oil executive), Hill and McMaster were skeptical.

Hill — author of a definitive biography of Putin -- started to explain some of the nuances she perceived from the call, according to CNN's sources — offering insight into Putin's psychology, his typical "smooth-talking" and linear approach and what the Russian leader was trying to achieve in the call. Hill was cut off by Trump, and the President continued discussing the call with Jared and Ivanka, making clear he wanted to hear the congratulatory evaluation of his daughter and her husband, rather than how Hill, Tillerson or McMaster judged the conversation.

McMaster viewed that early phone call with Putin as indicative of the conduct of the whole relationship between Russia and the Trump administration, according to the sources -- a conclusion subsequent national security advisers and chiefs of staff, and numerous high-ranking intelligence officials also reached: unlike in previous administrations, there were relatively few meaningful dealings between military and diplomatic professionals, even at the highest levels, because Trump -- distrustful of the experts and dismissive of their attempts to brief him -- conducted the relationship largely ad hoc with Putin and almost totally by himself. Ultimately, Putin and the Russians learned that "nobody has the authority to do anything" -- and the Russian leader used that insight to his advantage, as one of CNN's sources said.

The Kushners were also present for other important calls with foreign leaders and made their primacy apparent, encouraged by the President even on matters of foreign policy in which his daughter and her husband had no experience. Almost never, according to CNN's sources, would Trump read the briefing materials prepared for him by the CIA and NSC staff in advance of his calls with heads of state.

"He won't consult them, he won't even get their wisdom," said one of the sources, who cited Saudi Arabia's bin Salman as near the top of a list of leaders whom Trump "picks up and calls without anybody being prepared," a scenario that frequently confronted NSC and intelligence aides. The source added that the aides' helpless reaction "would frequently be, 'Oh my God, don't make that phone call.'"

"Trump's view is that he is a better judge of character than anyone else," said one of CNN's sources. The President consistently rejected advice from US defense, intelligence and national security principals that the Russian president be approached more firmly and with less trust. CNN's sources pointed to the most notable public example as "emblematic": Trump, standing next to the Russian President at their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, in June 2018, and saying he "didn't see any reason why" Russia would have interfered in the 2016 presidential election -- despite the findings of the entire US intelligence community that Moscow had. "President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said.

The common, overwhelming dynamic that characterizes Trump's conversations with both authoritarian dictators and leaders of the world's greatest democracies is his consistent assertion of himself as the defining subject and subtext of the calls -- almost never the United States and its historic place and leadership in the world, according to sources intimately familiar with the calls.

In numerous calls with the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada -- America's closest allies of the past 75 years, the whole postwar era -- Trump typically established a grievance almost as a default or leitmotif of the conversation, whatever the supposed agenda, according to those sources.

"Everything was always personalized, with everybody doing terrible things to rip us off — which meant ripping 'me' — Trump — off. He couldn't -- or wouldn't -- see or focus on the larger picture," said one US official.

The source cited a conspicuously demonstrable instance in which Trump resisted asking Angela Merkel (at the UK's urging) to publicly hold Russia accountable for the so-called 'Salisbury' poisonings of a former Russian spy and his daughter with Novichok, a nerve agent developed in what was then the Soviet Union, in which Putin had denied any Russian involvement despite voluminous evidence to the contrary.

"It took a lot of effort" to get Trump to bring up the subject, said one source. Instead of addressing Russia's responsibility for the poisonings and holding it to international account, Trump made the focus of the call -- in personally demeaning terms -- Germany's and Merkel's supposedly deadbeat approach to allied burden-sharing. Eventually, said the sources, as urged by his NSC staff, Trump at last addressed the matter of the poisonings, almost grudgingly. "With almost every problem, all it takes [in his phone calls] is someone asking him to do something as President on behalf of the United States and he doesn't see it that way; he goes to being ripped off; he's not interested in cooperative issues or working on them together; instead he's deflecting things or pushing real issues off into a corner," said a US official.

"There was no sense of 'Team America' in the conversations," or of the United States as an historic force with certain democratic principles and leadership of the free world, said the official. "The opposite. It was like the United States had disappeared. It was always 'Just me'."

Monday, June 29, 2020

Trump-Hannity Interview: A Trump Second Term?

Click here for an article at The Plum Line, a WaPo blog by Paul Waldman, entitled "Here’s what a second term of Trump would look like."

In an interview, Hannity tossed Trump this softball: "What are your top priority items for a second term?” To which our hero, the golden-tongued orator, responded as follows:
Well, one of the things that will be really great: You know, the word “experience” is still good. I always say talent is more important than experience. I’ve always said that. But the word “experience” is a very important word. It’s a very important meaning. I never did this before. I never slept over in Washington. I was in Washington, I think, 17 times, all of a sudden I’m president of the United States, you know the story, I’m riding down Pennsylvania Avenue with our first lady and I say, “This is great.”

But I didn’t know very many people in Washington. it wasn’t my thing. I was from Manhattan, from New York. Now I know everybody. And I have great people in the administration. You make some mistakes, like you know an idiot like Bolton, all he wanted to do is drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to kill people.
Okaaaay, thank you for that. Incidentally, I read elsewhere -- Mediate, I think -- that of a one-hour interview, 10 minutes were commercials. Of the remaining 50 minutes, Hannity and Trump spent 3 minutes discussing Covid-19; 47 minutes were spent covering other topics -- confederate monuments, looters and rioters, Sleepy Joe Biden, et cetera.

Sunday, June 28, 2020

Lindsey Graham on Donald Trump and Joe Biden

Paste this in your browser address window:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277238042546319360

Whatever became of this version of Lindsey Graham, and how did he become one of Trump's major lickspittles?

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Steve Schmidt v. Matt Gaetz

Matt Gaetz, Republican congresscritter from Florida, directed an insulting tweet to Steve Schmidt, oldtime Republican strategist:
“Decline” could be the story of the various Republican campaigns you’ve led, Steve.

Our ships sail on.

Yours all rest at the bottom of the political ocean.


Big mistake.

In a multi-tweet message, Schmidt responded:
You invited a Holocaust Denier to the State of the Union. You are a conspiracy theorist and a lackey for the most inept, incompetent and illiberal President in American History. In an utterly rancid political moment you have established yourself as a buffoon without peer.

Your drunk driving incident, dozen speeding tickets and gas mask stunt at the beginning of the pandemic mark you as an entitled, reckless and spoiled punk. Your conduct disgraces the United States Congress. One thing is certainly true about democracy, the crazy and the stupid deserve representation also, and with you they have a perfect one.

Trump is falling apart in every way. He is physically decrepit and slovenly. He can barely walk. He is mentally and morally weak and failing at a profound level. He will be repudiated by the American people and by history’s harsh judgement, as will you.

When you are an old man looking back on it all you can be satisfied that you were the political version of Meatloaf or Gary Busey on the Apprentice, a figure of ridicule, a clown 🤡 in Trump’s circus.

The economy is shattered. America is divided and 120,000 are dead from a badly managed pandemic. Trump is going down. @ProjectLincoln @reedgalen @jwgop @TheRickWilson .

All you will have left is the stench. It won’t go away. Ever.

Forthcoming Bombshell: Book By Mary Trump (Niece)

Click here for an article at The Hive, a Vanity Fair blog, by Joe Pompeo, entitled "“She Feels Very Determined”: How Mary Trump’s Coming Bombshell Was Built."

The article is about a forthcoming book by Mary Trump, 55-year-old daughter of Trump's older brother, Fred, who died of ailments related to his alcoholism at the age of 42. She is a clinical psychologist, which gives some weight to her insights into the toxic DNA of the Trump family. The book will be titled "Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man."

This quote from the article gives us some idea of what the book will be like:
On the night of her uncle’s election, responding to a tweet from progressive journalist Joan Walsh, Mary wrote, “This is one of the worst nights of my life. What is wrong with this country? I fear the American experiment has failed.”
Paste this into your browser's address window for Stephen Colbert's take on it, a "reading" from the book by Mary Trump herself:

https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/1273057775493550081

Fake News

Here's a segment from Reliable Sources, a CNN blog by Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, entitled "Twisted incentives." They say that "if one's primary intention is not necessarily to accurately inform or make a good faith argument, but instead to prey on preexisting political narratives to score cheap clicks and engagement on social media, the rules of the game change."

Twisted incentives

Rushing to judgment before all the facts have emerged is never a good idea if one's intention is to provide accurate information to an audience. Too often, preliminary information turns out to be inaccurate or seen in a different light once the full picture is made available. It's usually better to wait until a reasonable amount of information surfaces before weighing in.

But if one's primary intention is not necessarily to accurately inform or make a good faith argument, but instead to prey on preexisting political narratives to score cheap clicks and engagement on social media, the rules of the game change. In the universe of hyper-partisan media, it's actually in one's interest to publish information — regardless of how thin the supporting evidence is — that fits neatly into the narrative.

If you're ahead of your competitors in publishing, you'll see a huge boost in engagement on social media. And if you end up being wrong, so what? Slap an update on the article and move on — the audience will either not notice or care the way they would if an established news org erred.

On Tuesday, we were offered two examples (see below) in which right-wing media pushed a preferred narrative that went viral on social platforms, only later to be undercut by the facts that emerged. (To be clear, this happens across partisan media, and is not unique to right-wing media, though the President consumes the latter camp's messaging which makes it at the moment far more consequential.)

No, Shake Shack didn't poison the NYPD

If you logged online Monday night, you may have seen disturbing reports that indicated a trio of NYPD officers had been poisoned while at a Shake Shack. Those reports, many of which went viral in right-wing media, were based off statements from police unions. But early Tuesday morning, NYPD Detective Chief Rodney Harrison said an investigation had "determined there was no criminality." CNN reported that investigators believe a cleaning agent in the milkshake machine hadn't fully cleared and ended up in the drinks served to the officers.

And yet, even the NYPD's own statement didn't stop some partisan media players from pushing the misinformation. Justin Baragona reported that "despite Harrison’s statement, which came at 4 a.m. on Tuesday morning, several Fox News stars ... continued to push the now-debunked claim that the officers were deliberately poisoned by the burger chain’s employees." This B.S. continued into Tuesday night on right-wing websites like The Daily Wire, which blasted out a nightly newsletter with the headline about Shake Shack. All in all, it's a good case study demonstrating that the incentives in hyper-partisan media reward stories that reinforce preexisting political views versus accurate reporting...

Man allegedly linked with "Boogaloo" movement charged

A couple weeks ago, right-wing media personalities and outlets suggested — or outright blamed — the death of federal officer David Patrick Underwood was the result of Antifa or left-wing demonstrators. As Kevin Roose tweeted, "This Oakland police killing was heavily promoted by right-wing publications a few weeks ago as evidence that left-wing protesters were turning violent."

"It was all over Facebook," Roose explained, "shared by right-wing pages with millions of followers. Among the top stories on the platform for days." And it wasn't just limited to online platforms — Underwood's death was used to suggest violence at the demonstrations on talk radio and Fox News too.

Fast forward to Tuesday. US Attorney David Anderson announced at a press conference that a man believed to belong to the anti-government extremist "Boogaloo" group has been charged for the murder. In other words, not a left-wing Black Lives Matter protester or Antifa member. Far from it. But will the outlets and personalties that pushed that narrative correct their previous posts? Will the same amount of attention be given to the new information? Don't hold your breath...

No real consequences

When mainstream news organizations mess up, they correct their errors. If it's a big mistake, disciplinary measures might be taken against the reporter or editor. In severe cases, people could lose their jobs and their careers might be forever tainted.

But, as I alluded to earlier, hyper-partisan media generally isn't governed by the same rules. If these organizations or personalities make a mistake, no matter how egregious it may be, there are no real repercussions. The pundit or outlet often barely corrects or updates the post, before moving on to the next story that will advance the predetermined narrative. In fact, it can be argued that these hyper-partisan entities still benefit from pushing inaccurate information. If their post went viral on social media, for instance, they likely gained followers and added to their reach. The incentives in our current media environment are not aligned with disseminating accurate information.

Thursday, June 11, 2020

Chris Cuomo v. Larry Kudlow: Systemic Racism

Click here for a video clip (6:55) of Chris Cuomo replying to Larry Kudlow's repeated assertion that there is no systemic racism in the United States. Cuomo goes on and on and on and ON citing aspects of U.S. life where whites have a systemic advantage over blacks; it's quite a list.

He finishes by giving two possible reasons why Kudlow would express such a belief: one, in his world, he doesn't encounter it so he doesn't realize it's there; or two -- the reason Cuomo believes is the real reason -- he is knuckling under to Trump.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Cops' Participation In Vile Facebook Groups

This is pretty frightening. Click here for Part 1 of a three-part series entitled by Will Carless and Michael Corey, entitled "To protect and slur: Inside hate groups on Facebook, police officers trade racist memes, conspiracy theories and Islamophobia."

Sunday, June 7, 2020

William Barr, Explained

Click here for an excellent (long) article in The New York Times Magazine by Mattathias Schwartz, entitled "William Barr's State of Emergency."

It does a good job of explaining Barr's development as a supporter of the theory of the "unitary executive," defined in Wikipedia:
Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the president possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the strongly unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power not controlled by the president.
The article says:
The presidency, in his [Barr's] view, handled “sovereign functions … which by their very nature cannot be directed by a pre-existing legal regime but rather demand speed, secrecy, unity of purpose and prudent judgment to meet contingent circumstances.” Part of the core function of the presidency was the ability to act swiftly and without constraint, but this capability had been diminished by the other branches since Watergate. Congress had burdened the president with oversight, while the courts were interfering with Trump’s travel ban on certain countries and his termination of President Barack Obama’s DACA program for young immigrants. Barr seemed to suggest that when it comes to foreign policy, the only legitimate check on presidential behavior is the next election. Months later, this argument would become the foundation of Trump’s impeachment defense.
Barr, who had previously been attorney general under Poppy Bush, was appointed Trump's attorney general largely on the strenght of an unsolicited "application" he sent to the White House:
outlining why he believed that Mueller had no legal right to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. The president, Barr argued, has “complete authority to start or stop” investigations and can “give direction” on individual cases, including those that touch on his political or financial interests. “The Constitution itself places no limit on the president’s authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct,” Barr wrote. Law enforcement, he argued, was a power exclusively held by the president, because “he alone is the executive branch.”
Barr had hardly been in his post for a month when he received the Mueller report, when he published a hugely distorted "summary" of the report which seemed to exonerate Trump (which the report itself was far from doing). It's a mistake to consider Barr to be a tool of Donald Trump:
“Those who think he’s a tool of Donald Trump are missing the point,” says Stuart Gerson, who led the Justice Department’s civil division during Barr’s first tour and then succeeded him, serving as acting attorney general during the first three months of Bill Clinton’s presidency. “If anything, it’s the other way around. Barr is vastly more intelligent than Donald Trump. What Trump gives Bill Barr is a canvas upon which to paint. Bill has longstanding views about how society should be organized, which can now be manifested and acted upon to a degree that they never could have before.”
Many believe Barr to be acting not as "the people's lawyer," but as Donald Trump's personal lawyer:
Vanita Gupta, the former head of Obama’s civil rights division at the department, articulated a prevailing view of Barr among Democrats, telling me that the attorney general has “since Day 1 operated as the president’s defense lawyer.” Gupta says Barr’s interventions on behalf of Trump associates have far-reaching consequences. “Barr is overturning decisions made by career prosecutors to placate the president,” she says. “It’s insulting to federal prosecutors who have given their time to build cases with honor and integrity. It has a destructive impact on morale.”
I await with trepidation the forthcoming publishing of the Durham report, which looks as though it will be an effort to pillory the Mueller investigators:
Based on Barr’s public statements, we can see the rough contours of Durham’s findings beginning to take shape. The government’s conduct during the Obama-to-Trump transition, Barr has said, was “abhorrent.” Surveillance of Trump’s campaign amounted to “spying.” Then there was the all-important question of whether the F.B.I. was justified in opening the initial Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties.
The Durham investigation has been shrouded in mystery, but it doesn't look good:
Barr has spoken with intelligence officials from Italy, Australia and Britain to reportedly solicit information that could help Durham. In the case of Italy, where Barr and Durham met with political leaders and intelligence chiefs in person, his visit provoked concern among U.S. diplomats, who told The Times that Barr circumvented protocols in setting up the trip. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who is the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee and helped write its five-volume report, said there were “concerns” about Barr’s trips. “There is queasiness among our allies about the kind of activities Barr is engaged in,” he said.

Peggy Noonan v. Trump

Click here for an article by John Harwood at CNN entitled "Trump's evident character flaws leave him unable to meet the historic moment."

Harwood contrasts efforts to unite a divided country by presidents going all the way back to FDR with Trump's constant efforts to divide the country, please his supporters, and antagonize his political opponents. He quotes Peggy Noonan, who predictably praised Ronald Reagan before saying:
"A president doesn't have to be brilliant," Noonan wrote 25 years ago. "He doesn't have to be clever. You can hire clever. But you can't buy courage and decency, and you can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him."

It Can't Happen Here? Oh, Yeah?

Click here for an article in The Washington Post by Salman Rushdie, entitled "I’ve seen dictators rise and fall. Beware, America."

Rushdie has lived through and under dictatorships in India and Pakistan, and has used their many misdeeds as the basis for some of his novels. He says he has lived in the U.S. for 20 years and has been a citizen for the last 4, and reminds us that the First Amendment says, in part: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
And yet, the man whose incompetence allowed the pandemic to tighten its deadly grip around our necks, and whose inflammatory language full of racist dog whistles has played a significant role in unleashing white-supremacist bigotry upon us all, stands in the Rose Garden of the White House and announces without an iota of shame that he wants to protect peaceful protesters. At that very time, just down the street, his security forces, some of them on horseback, are attacking a peaceful protest with tear gas and rubber bullets. A moment later, he characterizes the demonstrators as terrorists and characterizes their protests as crimes against God.
Rushdie says:
If he is allowed to use the actions of a tiny minority of criminals and white extremist infiltrators to invalidate the honorable protest of the vast majority against the murder of Floyd, the violence of the police toward the black community and the entrenched power of American racism, he will be on his way to despotism. He has threatened to use the Army against American citizens, a threat one might have expected from a leader of the former Soviet Union, but not of the United States.

In my most recent novel, “Quichotte,” I characterized the present moment as the “Age of Anything-Can-Happen.” Today I say, beware, America. Don’t believe that it can’t happen here.
"IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE": Shades of Sinclair Lewis.

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Statement by General Mattis

Statement made by General James (Mad Dog) Mattis, a former Marine four-star who was Trump's first Secretary of Defense, acting from January 2017 to January 2019:
In Union There Is Strength

I have watched this week's unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

 When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict— between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.

Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat." We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln's "better angels," and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

James Mattis

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Ann Coulter v. Trump

Click here for an article by Karoli Kuns at Crooks & Liars entitled "Ann Coulter Tees Off On Trump: 'Another Roy Moore Fiasco.'"

Wow! Coulter doesn't hold back. The following are all tweets from Sunday, May 24:
The most disloyal actual retard that has ever set foot in the Oval Office is trying to lose AND take the Senate with him. Another Roy Moore fiasco so he can blame someone else for his own mess.
Another, same day:
COVID gave Trump a chance to be a decent, compassionate human being (or pretending to be). But he couldn't even do that.
Here's a Coulter tweet in response to a Trump tweet attacking Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation:
Sessions HAD to recuse himself, you complete blithering idiot. YOU did not have to go on Lester Holt's show and announce you fired Comey over the Russian investigation. That's what got you a Special Prosecutor.
Again, same day, apparently criticizing Trump's endorsement of no-hoper Roy Moore for the Alabama Senate race in 2018:
GREAT WORK IN THE LAST ALABAMA SENATE RACE, MR. PRESIDENT! Keep it up and we'll have zero Republican senators. The next Republican president will be elected in the year 4820.
And finally (at least so far; it's still May 24, 2 p.m. Eastern):
I will never apologize for supporting the issues that candidate Trump advocated, but I am deeply sorry for thinking that this shallow and broken man would show even some remote fealty to the promises that got him elected.

Saturday, May 23, 2020

Click here for an article by Digby at Hullabaloo entitled "Why Trumpie won’t read."
The New York Times reported today on Trump’s insistence that the Intelligence Community didn’t adequately warn him about the coronavirus pandemic. Even if true, it shouldn’t have made a difference. All you had to do was read the papers. And his own public health experts were running around with their hair on fire. He just didn’t want to hear it.

In fact, he doesn’t want to read anything or hear anything that doesn’t apply directly to what people are saying about him. It is literally all he cares about:

Mr. Trump, who has mounted a yearslong attack on the intelligence agencies, is particularly difficult to brief on critical national security matters, according to interviews with 10 current and former intelligence officials familiar with his intelligence briefings.

The president veers off on tangents and getting him back on topic is difficult, they said. He has a short attention span and rarely, if ever, reads intelligence reports, relying instead on conservative media and his friends for information. He is unashamed to interrupt intelligence officers and riff based on tips or gossip he hears from the former casino magnate Steve Wynn, the retired golfer Gary Player or Christopher Ruddy, the conservative media executive.

Mr. Trump rarely absorbs information that he disagrees with or that runs counter to his worldview, the officials said. Briefing him has been so great a challenge compared with his predecessors that the intelligence agencies have hired outside consultants to study how better to present information to him.

Working to keep Mr. Trump’s interest exhausted and burned out his first briefer, Ted Gistaro, two former officials said. Mr. Gistaro did not always know what to expect and would sometimes have to brief an erratic and angry president upset over news reports, the officials said.
More from the article:
Trump’s non-reading evinces not stupidity so much as incuriosity. Narcissists are easily bored, and Trump is no exception. In his 1990 book, Surviving at the Top, which he didn’t write, Trump says that travel, exercise, and successful people bore him. “I get bored too easily,” he says. “My attention span is short.”

Trump’s former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn allegedly wrote in an email, “Trump won’t read anything — not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored.”

The only information that interests Trump is information that affirms his self-image. He’s rich, handsome, and popular — that’s what he wants to hear, which is why he regularly says it himself.

Trump, we are told, processes information orally. If you process information orally, you likely process little information. And if you process little information, you exude even less. Every time Trump comments on a subject, he reveals how little he knows about it. He wondered aloud why the Civil War was fought. He said he’s been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated. He didn’t know what happened at Pearl Harbor. He’s too dumb to know he’s ignorant, and he’s too narcissistic to care.

As John McWhorter, a linguistics professor at Columbia University, observed, oral communication is personal, focuses on emotions, and “reinforces what you know,” whereas the written word “collects information we don’t memorize.” The latter is conducive to prolonged thinking.
And:
Trump, putative author of three books with “think” in the title, doesn’t like to think. He doesn’t even think about himself — his favorite subject — much less about public health. He lives and acts in the moment, chasing instant gratification, which reading does not provide. That’s why he prefers television and Twitter to reading and thinking: they are immediate, visceral, and cognitively undemanding.

Reading doesn’t necessarily make you a good president — James Buchanan, America’s second-worst president, was well-read — but not reading is sure to make you a bad one. In his book Call Sign Chaos, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis writes, “If you haven’t read hundreds of books, you are functionally illiterate, and you will be incompetent, because your personal experiences alone aren’t broad enough to sustain you.” Trump’s personal experiences include being on TV a lot and watching a lot of TV.

One of the purposes of reading is to learn, but it’s pointless to learn if you already know everything. Trump is convinced of his own omniscience. Last month, he claimed to “know a lot about helicopters” and to “know South Korea better than anybody,” right before he got the population of Seoul wrong. “I know windmills very much,” he said in December. “I’ve studied it better than anybody.”

The president has claimed to possess superior knowledge about drones, ISIS, courts, lawsuits, America’s system of government, trade, renewable energy, banks, taxes, tax laws, debt, campaign finance, money, infrastructure, construction, technology, the economy, Democrats, polls, steelworkers, the word “apprentice,” environmental impact statements, “the power of Facebook,” “offense and defense,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), COVID-19, and “things.”

None of this is true. Trump is a know-it-all who knows almost nothing and refuses to read anything except his own name. His bibliophobia would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.

Lindsey Graham Nailed

Click here for a post by Digby at Hullabaloo an ad against Lindsey Graham as he runs for re-election in South Carolina.

Saturday, May 16, 2020

He's Back! (Ronny Jackson, That Is)

Remember Ronny Jackson? A Navy rear admiral, he was appointed president's physician by W in 2006, and kept on by Obama and then Trump. He was quiet, apolitical, and liked by many in the Obama administration. He first became controversial in January 2018 when he gushed about Trump's extraordinary health (preposterous on its face; the man is sedentary, obese, and a junk food addict), "incredible genes," and said "Based on his cardiac assessment, hands down, there is no question he is in the excellent range," and "I told the President that if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years he might live to be 200 years old." Many people in the Obama administration who had known Jackson defended him at that point because he was well liked.

Controversy boiled over in March 2018, when Trump nominated Jackson, who had no previous managerial experience, to be secretary of Veterans Affairs, a bureaucracy with 375,000 employees. He was assailed for his total lack of experience, and stories came out that he generously doled out prescription drugs left and right, earning the nickname "Candyman," and that he was frequently drunk on duty. Though the allegations were disputed and never really proven, Trump abandoned the nomination.

Jackson retired from the Navy in December 2019 and announced a week later that he was running for a seat in Congress as a Republican (a sitting Republican congressman was retiring). Once seen to be apolitical, he is now an outspoken Trump supporter. Click here for an article by Kevin Liptak at CNN entitled "Former White House physician Ronny Jackson dives headfirst into 'Obamagate' and angers former colleagues."

To the consternation of his former Obama administration friends, he said last week on Twitter, without offering any proof, "President Obama weaponized the highest levels of our government to spy on President Trump. Every Deep State traitor deserves to be brought to justice for their heinous actions." The following day, he doubled down:
On Wednesday, Jackson released a new statement "regarding recent false accusations from former Obama officials and the mainstream media."

"I stand by my comments calling out President Obama's administration for weaponizing our government to spy on President Trump and his supporters," Jackson wrote. "I will never apologize for standing up to protect America's national security interests and constitutional freedoms, even if that means triggering liberals and the 'mainstream media.'"

In his statement, Jackson says he's "proud to call President Trump a close friend."
Former acquaintances feel blindsided: "During my time in the White House Ronny Jackson was my colleague, my friend and my doctor. I thanked him in my book for his good care," tweeted Alyssa Mastromonaco, a former deputy chief of staff. "His comments yesterday and today leave me confused, angry, and heartbroken. I don't recognize this version of Ronny at all."

Friday, May 15, 2020

An Explanation Of The Flynn Mess

Click here for an article in The New York Times by Adam Goldman and Mark Mazzetti entitled "Trump White House Changes Its Story on Michael Flynn."

Don't lose sight of the fact that Flynn twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about telephone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. The view expressed by the White House three years ago was that "Mr. Flynn ... had lied to Vice President Mike Pence and other aides about the nature of his calls to the ambassador, had lied repeatedly to F.B.I. agents about the calls, and might have made himself vulnerable to Russian blackmail."

Marshall L. Miller, a former top prosecutor in Brooklyn and the principal deputy of the Justice Department’s criminal division, says “Mr. Flynn admitted twice under oath that he lied to the F.B.I. Political appointees at D.O.J. are now trying to rewrite the law to erase the crime.”
Mr. Flynn’s troubles began with a phone call.

It was Dec. 29, 2016, the day the outgoing Obama administration announced sanctions against Russia for the country’s widespread effort to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Flynn, who was Mr. Trump’s incoming national security adviser, urged Mr. Kislyak in a phone call not to escalate tensions with a retaliatory move against the United States — perhaps by kicking American diplomats and spies out of Russia.

Given the circumstances, the call was remarkable. The United States government had just determined that its longtime adversary had launched a concerted effort to sabotage a presidential election, and the incoming national security adviser was having a back-channel discussion with a top Russian official that might lead to the new Trump administration gutting the sanctions its predecessor put in place to punish the Russians.
As time went by, "The matter took on greater urgency when Mr. Flynn’s discussions with Mr. Kislyak were revealed publicly by David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist."

Top Trump transition officials — including Mr. Pence as well as Reince Priebus, who was to be White House chief of staff, and Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary — questioned Mr. Flynn about the Washington Post column. Mr. Flynn denied that he spoke about sanctions with Mr. Kislyak, and Mr. Spicer repeated those claims to members of the news media. "Days later, on Face the Nation, Pence stated what Flynn had told him: "'They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,' the vice president said."
Mr. Pence’s interview set off alarms at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. If Mr. Flynn had lied to the vice president, the Russians knew that and could use it as leverage over Mr. Flynn. Newly disclosed documents made public in Mr. Flynn’s criminal case show officials were also concerned that Mr. Pence might have been lying, as well.

“The implications of that were that the Russians believed one of two things — either that the vice president was in on it with Flynn, or that Flynn was clearly willing to lie to the vice president,” Mary B. McCord, a former top national security at the time, said in an interview with the special counsel’s office.
That was when the FBI decided to find out what was going on. Comey sent a pair of FBI agents to interview Flynn, who by then was a few days into his job as national security adviser. That was when Flynn lied repeatedly, denying that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador [how could he not have known that Kislyak's phone calls were tapped, and the FBI knew he was lying?]
“McGahn [White House counsel] and Priebus [White House chief of staff] concluded that Flynn could not have forgotten the details of the discussions of sanctions and had instead been lying about what he discussed with Kislyak.”

Mr. McGahn and Mr. Priebus decided that Mr. Flynn needed to go and made that recommendation to Mr. Trump.
So it was Trump and his White House staff who made the decision to fire Flynn for what they believed was good cause, although they are now maintaining that Flynn is a victim of bullying by the Obama administration as part of a "silent coup" to take Trump down. In June of 2019 Flynn got a new lawyer, a woman named Sidney Powell, who stated that “it is increasingly apparent that General Flynn was targeted and taken out of the Trump administration for concocted and political purposes.”

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Why People Support Trump (It's Frightening)

Click here for an excellent article at The New York Times by Thomas B. Edsall entitled "Trump Is Staking Out His Own Universe of ‘Alternative Facts,'" subtitled "The president’s re-election strategy isn’t based on reality. How could it be?"

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
In less than a year, from May 2019 to March 2020, the share of weekly church-attending white Protestants convinced that Donald Trump was anointed by God to be president grew from 29.6 percent to 49.5 percent.
Good lord. "Anointed by God"? What's wrong with these people?
The Trump campaign’s digital sites serve a dual purpose. His supporters are able to enter a self-contained, self-reinforcing arena where Trump reigns supreme, and the campaign gets detailed marketing information about those who go through the elaborate sign-up process — information subsequently used for voter mobilization, fund-raising and volunteer recruitment.
The article says that Stefan Smith, a Democratic tech strategist, says the Trump campaign is "trapping people inside an ecosystem of dangerous misinformation, conspiracy theories, and grievance politics. And it’s doing so while making the experience as fun and exciting as possible."
“The new Trump campaign app uses gamification to drive voter outreach and valuable data collection,” CNN reported on April 23. “Share the campaign app with a friend, win 100 points. Earn 5,000 points and you can redeem a campaign store discount. Earn 100,000 points, and you can get a picture with President Donald Trump.”

Those who download the Trump app can “watch live ‘shows’ hosted by senior campaign aides and surrogates,” according to CNN, and receive tutorial videos from top campaign aides and surrogates like Lara Trump, who explains how to become a “digital activist” on social media and host a “MAGA meet up.” Kimberly Guilfoyle, the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr, explains how to become a fund-raising “bundler” and political director Chris Carr discusses how to be a grass roots “team leader.”

Parscale himself [Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager] told viewers that his favorite item at his Florida home is Hillary Clinton toilet paper: “I have boxes of it,” he said, “and I take it into the bathroom and it’s just enjoyable since she said so many mean things about me and our campaign and our president.”
A scholarly article about the phenomenon, “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy,” published in 2018 in the American Sociological Review by Oliver Hahl, Minjae Kim and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan, of the business schools at Yale, Northwestern and M.I.T., pose the question: “How can a constituency of voters find a candidate authentically appealing (i.e., view him positively as authentic) even though he is a ‘lying demagogue’ (someone who deliberately tells lies and appeals to nonnormative private prejudices)?”

How does a lying demagogue attract and keep supporters? Well, “the lying demagogue claims to be an authentic champion of those who are subject to social control by the established political leadership.” The target audience is those who believe that their interests are not represented by the political establishment. The established political leadership is repelled by the actions of "the lying demagogue," and this just reinforces the followers' belief that the demagogue is on their side, fighting their fight, enraging the right people.

People may feel anxious or angry about the political landscape they see around them -- and the demagogue tries to keep them angry.
When people are anxious they tend to seek out new information. Anxiety rouses people from a sort of ‘autopilot’ mode and causes them to re-evaluate their beliefs.

Anger, in contrast, has the opposite effect. When people are angry they tend to mentally retreat and dig in on the things that they know and believe to be true.

The result?

The psychological nature of anger essentially precludes any sort of attitudinal change against Trump. Anger causes Trump’s supporters to become more reliant on information they receive from him, the RNC, Fox News, etc.
Here's some scary stuff: Jim Messina, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, warned in an April 9 appearance on David Plouffe’s podcast, that

the numbers are pretty stark. Joe Biden has 4.6 million Twitter followers. Donald Trump has 75 million. Joe Biden has 1.7 million Facebook fans. Donald Trump has 28 million.

And: “Biden’s first virtual online chat got 5,000 people. Just one with Lara Trump gets 945,000.”