QOTD -- A Common Criminal

 

"If the allegations in the latest indictment of Donald Trump hold up, the former president is a common criminal — and an uncommonly stupid one.

"Everyone knows, as the Watergate scandal drove home: The coverup is always worse than the crime. Everyone, that is, but Trump.

"According to the superseding indictment handed up late Thursday, even after Trump knew the FBI was onto his improper retention of classified information, and even after he knew they were seeking security camera footage from the Mar-a-Lago storage areas where the material was kept — in other words, when any reasonably adept criminal would have known to stop digging holes — Trump made matters infinitely worse."... --  Ruth Marcus, Washington Post, on the Watergate lesson not learned by the "uncommonly stupid" Malignant Loser, as demonstrated in the superseding indictment issued yesterday.  His relentless lawlessness must be met with relentless accountability.

QOTD -- The SCOTUS "Rule Of Six"

 

"[F]or those who believe the court has a vital role to play in protecting democracy, promoting civil rights and achieving justice, “the outlook is not good at all,” said Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who served as solicitor general in the Obama administration. “Things may unfold more slowly or less completely than our worst fears. But I think most of our worst fears are going to be realized. It’s just a question of at what pace.”

"If that grim diagnosis seems correct, the cure is more elusive. Some treatments, like court-packing, would be worse than the disease. Others, like imposing term limits, are harder to administer and wouldn’t be effective for years. Which means: The court is where it is. The Rule of Six is now in force. Conservatives have time to write their views into the law books, where they will remain for decades to come. The change they choose to enact will be swift or slow; it will be open or stealthy.

"But make no mistake: It is coming. The court, and the nation, will be worse off for it." -- Ruth Marcus in  a Washington Post feature article making the case that having a 6 right- wing- justice- majority on the Supreme Court means that "the pathways to victory are enlarged" beyond what would be attainable with a 5-justice majority, a fragile majority that might necessitate compromise.

Elections have consequences, as does having weak and institutionalist Democrats who are always willing to play by Republican rules.

Monday Reading

As always, please go to the links for the full articles/ opeds.

It's easy to lose track of the other failure of leadership costing American lives.  The coronavirus death toll in the U.S. is now over 112,000 and is predicted to reach as high as 143,000 by June 27.  New cases are averaging about 20,000 per day. Keep in mind the numbers are almost certainly an undercount, due to limited testing, reporting cause of death as "pneumonia," and lack of reporting by some Trump- allied governments (e.g., Florida).  A new study estimates that shut downs prevented 60 million coronavirus cases in U.S.  Now, in some states, the initial delay in taking action and limited testing, followed by a rush to "open" the economy, is likely causing the virus to spread aggressively again, especially in the South and Midwest.  In those regions, small cities and rural communities are showing the highest per capita infection rates (some linked to meat processing plants or penal institutions).  It turns out there's a heavy price to pay for incompetence -- and this is only part of the damage it's wreaking on our country.

Ruth Marcus, columnist and deputy editorial page editor at the Washington Post, writes that the problem with policing isn't about "a few bad apples":

Every day — every night, to be more precise — more bad apples roll before our eyes. The video is horrifying; the camera unflinching. So, more Americans — white Americans, even Republican Americans, a majority of Americans except, it seems, those who work behind fortified barricades for President Trump — have come to understand: The problem of policing is not individual apples, but bushels full of them. It is a diseased tree.

A diseased tree with three infected and intertwined branches that each must be lopped off. The worst, by far, is systemic racism in police departments nationwide — and here perhaps the arboreal metaphor fails, and the disease is in the trunk itself, if not in the soil of our national history. The second is the embedded culture of brutality and tolerance of brutality among police officers. The third, connected to the second, is the militarization of police departments, with combat-style equipment designed for battlefields and heedlessly deployed in American streets, that reinforces this culture of violence and, as Trump would have it, “domination.”

Those who were inclined, who had the distance — and, yes, the privilege — to be inclined to give officers and departments the benefit of the doubt can no longer soothe themselves with the illusion that these are random, unrepresentative incidents. Technology in the form of omnipresent video cameras has conclusively ended that debate. Those who are white can no longer rest comfortably in the fiction that this is a problem confined to the other. The affected communities will no longer tolerate the murderous knee on the neck, nor should they; the ensuing outrage consumes us all. As it should. As it must.

Meanwhile in Minneapolis, the City Council is moving forward to defund the police department and replace it with a new model:

Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council said Sunday that they are planning to disband the police department. The veto-proof majority said they want to replace the police department with a community-based model of public safety. “Our commitment is to end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department, to end policing as we know it, and to re-create systems of public safety that actually keep us safe,” Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender said.

The council members made the announcement that they were committed to disband the Minneapolis Police Department through the budget process at a rally Sunday afternoon. “It is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe,” Bender said. “Our efforts at incremental reform have failed, period.” Jeremiah Ellison blankly said what the goal was: “This council is going to dismantle this police department.”

If they succeed, Minneapolis won't be the first city to disband its police department and replace it with a community- based system.  Camden, NJ, might offer a good model:

The entire force of cash-strapped Camden was disbanded a few years ago and reconstituted with a new mentality drilled into its officers: community service.

Out went the urban-warrior attitude. In came the guardians. The new departmental policy said officers would no longer be judged by their number of arrests and tickets. 

Instead, they were told to patrol on foot, mingle with residents, and build a reservoir of trust to draw upon in a crisis.

Residents of Camden, located near Philadelphia, say it's been successful. Murders are down by two-thirds since the year before the police reform, and overall violent crime is down nearly half.

The new police chief didn't just participate in a Black Lives Matter protest last month. He helped lead it. 

Today in Houston, private funeral services will be held for George Floyd, and Joe Biden is offering support in a decent and sensitive way:

Democratic US presidential candidate Joe Biden will travel to Houston on Monday and meet with the family of George Floyd, two weeks after Floyd’s death in police custody triggered nationwide protests over racial injustice, aides said.

Biden is expected to offer his sympathies to Floyd’s relatives and record a video message for the private funeral service scheduled to take place on Tuesday in Floyd’s hometown of Houston, two aides said. He is not expected to attend the service to avoid any disruption to mourners that could be caused by his Secret Service protective detail.

Meanwhile, Bunker Boy is meeting with police officials today.  'Nuff said.

We close with our usual strong recommendation to get over to Infidel 753's link round- up to get a fuller picture of what's going on around the country and the world.  (We also strongly suggest you read his meditation on liberation!)

Monday Reading

As always, please go to the links for the full article/ post.

Lying weasel lied

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony that he opposed a proposal for President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team to meet with Russians has been contradicted by three people who told Reuters they have spoken about the matter to investigators with Special Counsel Robert Mueller or congressional committees. 

Sessions testified before Congress in November 2017 that he “pushed back” against the proposal made by former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos at a March 31, 2016 campaign meeting. Then a senator from Alabama, Sessions chaired the meeting as head of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team. 

“Yes, I pushed back,” Sessions told the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 14, when asked whether he shut down Papadopoulos’ proposed outreach to Russia. (our emphasis)

That's the same weasel who fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (knowing it would please Cadet Bone Spurs), ostensibly because McCabe was not truthful in his interactions with investigators about press contacts.

No squealing!

... In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. [snip] 

... [T]his confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.” 

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant. 

... Which raises the obvious question: Why is he so consistently frantic to ensure that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors?  (our emphasis)

(Oooh!  Oooh!  We know!  It's because what's going on is illegal, unethical, morally bankrupt and treasonous.)

The ACLU points out that, once again, Trump doesn't understand or care about the difference between private and public employee status:

Public employees can’t be gagged by private agreements. These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable. https://t.co/IyYqScsESu

— ACLU (@ACLU) March 19, 2018

To stop Trump, pragmatism is principle

Partisanship is easy to criticize. But in the short run, removing a supine GOP from power in Congress is the one and only way voters can use the ballot box to hold the president accountable. Whatever their differences, Democrats will not allow Russia’s meddling or the many forms of Trump administration corruption to be buried. 

There will be plenty of time before 2020 to argue over the Democratic Party’s direction. These discussions cannot be postponed forever. But between now and the fall, sorting out which candidate best fits a given state or district matters far more than it usually does. For Trump’s opponents, pragmatism is principle — because the stakes are so high. (our emphasis)

At this point in our history, anyone on the left who undercuts "best fit" Democratic candidates are only doing Trump's work for him. Period.

Last but not least, Infidel has his comprehensive link round- up with an encyclopedic array of political and non- political topics you'll find interesting, amusing and/ or infuriating.  Check it out.

Wanker Of The Day - Ruth Marcus

Both- siderist "centrist" "Democrat" and fire hose opponent Ruth "Magic" Marcus has a suggestion for filling the SCOTUS vacancy (while rewarding the strict obstructionist Republican Senate, so win-win!):

Speaking of the president, there’s a way — albeit even less likely — for Barack Obama to reduce the political temperature. He could take the advice proffered by a lawyer who would later become his White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, and ask that his nominee pledge to serve a limited term. [snip]

Crazy times call for crazy suggestions.  (our emphasis)

Indeed.  We'll file that suggestion in the proper receptacle!

Marcus has never seen a loaf she's not willing to split with radical Republicans;  or fail to discern a "sensible center" she imagines herself to be a part of;  nor does she miss an opportunity to undercut a key Democratic foreign policy victory.  Because if we continue to give Republicans what they want, their un- democratic obstruction temper tantrums will stop!  The end!

All in all, a faithful inheritor of the mantle of high Broderism.

Why Republican Elites Are In Panic Mode - Exhibit B

Today, frequent blind squirrel Ruth Marcus slips on her reality glasses and focuses her op/ ed on Dr. "Mental Ben" Carson, with a swipe at co- front runner Donald "Rump" Trump.  She says:

"... [the question] about Carson isn’t whether the retired neurosurgeon is a fabulist, and therefore whether he has the right character to be president. It’s whether he has the knowledge and understanding to be president. The evidence is rather conclusive that he doesn’t.

Why single out Carson? This is a fair question in a Republican race whose other front-runner is Donald Trump. But Trump’s brand of blustery unpreparedness is more self-evident, more accessible, than Carson’s. Trump will build a tremendous wall. He’ll stop making stupid deals. If voters are credulous enough to be seduced by his supposed managerial skills and convinced by his grandiose promises — well, that’s on them, though woe to the rest of us.

Carson’s ignorance is of a more subtle sort, delivered with his genial bedside manner. It unfolds not in indignant sound bites but in paragraphs of pure blather. Carson doesn’t just need fact-checking. He needs thought-checking.  (our emphasis)

Meanwhile, both Rump and Mental Ben continue to score with the appallingly awful Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid/ Crazy Party base:

A new poll finds Donald Trump surging well above his chief 2016 rival Ben Carson after week that included a Saturday Night Live appearance and a GOP debate.

Forty-two percent of likely GOP voters supported Trump in a five-day rolling poll released Friday by Reuters/Ipsos, up from 25 percent last week. Carson was also polling around 25 percent last week and his support among GOP voters has since dipped slightly.  (our emphasis)

Mmmmm.  Let's see.  Forty- two percent plus 25 percent equals [tap tap click click] 67 percent (!!!). No wonder the money boys and the insider Republican elites are "in panic mode."

Contrary to the wishful thinking in the Republican hack writers guild that the Rump and Carson melt downs are finally happenin' (no, this time for realz!), the co- front runners show no signs that their bizarre ideas and behavior are negatively affecting their standing among the folks residing in the asylum right- wing bubble.  In fact, the more bizarre the talk and the walk, the more they're clasped to the bosoms of the True Believers.  For this despicable party, the chickens cuckoos are coming home to roost with a vengeance.

More Washington Post Biden Boomlet Wanking

Today, it's the ever- appalling Georgetown salon dweller Ruth Marcus wanking about Joementum!  (Her op/ed is full of ridiculous Biden boosterism fueled by Clinton hate and the desire to muddle the Democratic race and reinforce the media's "Democrats in disarray" narrative.)  Since she's typically several beats behind the Conventional Wisdom, Marcus is coming a bit late to the once great Washington Post's Bezos Bugle's Biden Boomlet, because it would seem the latest Conventional Wisdom is that Biden is not going to run.  Presumably, Marcus can't find enough to write about in the box of rocks also known as the 17 Republican presidential candidates to fill her weekly quota of electrons.   That's your "liberal media," friends.

As an antidote to the Bezos Bugle's ongoing anybody- but- Clinton wankery, here's Ed Kilgore:

Notwithstanding attributions of “panic,” and despite heavy, heavy negative press for months now, Hillary Clinton is maintaining a lead over all potential Republican nominees in the RealClearPolitics polling averages. In the last national poll to be released, from CNN/ORC, she led Bush by nine points, Fiorina by ten points, and Walker and Trump by six points. In the Democratic nomination contest, she’s leading Sanders nationally two-to-one, even though pollsters are choosing to muddy the waters by including Biden in the surveys, and is leading Bernie in every state other than (in some polls) New Hampshire. Biden’s running a weak third at around 12 percent. Having run twice before and failed dismally twice before, amid signs he did not or could not raise the kind of money needed for a serious candidacy, he’s not exactly a natural magnet for moneyed or tenured elites, either.

The more you look at the Biden bandwagon, it looks more like a ghost ship being pulled through the mist by a combination of hungry political reporters, Hillary haters (including most of the conservative media), and Delaware-based Friends of Joe who, of course, would love to see him run. Plus there’s [Clinton- hating South Carolina Democrat Dick, and we do mean Dick] Harpootlian!

As Kilgore points out, pollsters are muddying the waters by putting Biden in the surveys (where he comes in a distant third);  with him not included, Clinton's "falling numbers" firm back up again.  But, when you want your narrative to be, "Clinton Flailing;  Joe Biden to the Rescue?", you can arrange it any way you want.

Insipid Political Analysis Peaks

Ruth Marcus must've taken that call from her Georgetown salon pal Sen. Chuck Schumer (?-Wall Street), because she's criticizing President Obama's defense of the Iran nuclear deal.  Here's how she leads in:

President Obama says those who oppose the Iran nuclear deal are either ideological or illogical. I support the deal, yet I think this assessment is incorrect and unfair. It diminishes the president’s case for congressional approval.

Unfair!  How dare the President call those sweet, reasonable Republicans "ideological!"  The ones who were against the deal before it was even negotiated.  The ones who liken him to Neville Chamberlain.  The ones who say the deal is like "marching Israelis to door of the oven." The 47 who signed an arguably treasonous letter to the Ayatollahs, attempting to undermine our negotiations with a foreign power.

Unfair!  How dare the President call those same Republicans and some Likudnik/ craven "Democrats" illogical!  Chuck Schumer illogical?  Because he thinks if the deal is rejected U.S. sanctions will remain in place and will work?  Here's BooMan's rejoinder to that priceless piece of nonsense:

Because sanctions don't work on Iran unless we're willing to sanction those who violate the sanctions on Iran [Ed.: our European allies, Russia and China]. And we're not going to do that because that would be completely insane in this context.

But, as I've said, Ruth Marcus knows this very well. And, yet, she chose to use her precious space in the Washington Post to troll the president for being dismissive and exasperated and unaccommodating of the people who are just talking the worst nonsense about this deal.  (our emphasis)

No, the main reason Ms. Marcus is clutching her pearls at President Obama's forceful and accurate framing of the opposition is that the opposition now includes her fellow situational "Democrat," the slippery Sen. Schumer (who's apparently been burning up the phone lines to shore up support for himself - unfortunately with some success).

As BooMan quotes Secretary of State Kerry's response to Schumer's, and now by extension Marcus's arguments, "Are you kidding me?"

BONUS:  Ed Kilgore adds:

... It struck me as confirmation that until the day Barack Obama leaves office, he will be blamed for the irrational rage and obstructionism of his opponents no matter what he does.

Think about what that opposition has said and done on the Iran deal: they invited a foreign head-of-government to attack it in the U.S. Congress while negotiations were still ongoing; they denounced it as treason before they had even read its terms; and now the presidential candidates among them are swearing they will abrogate it at the very first opportunity. And Obama is supposed to respect these people and those who have fecklessly joined them with their finicky misgivings?

BONUS II:  Danny Goldberg at DWT has more on the betrayal by Schumer and other Likudnik "Democrats."

Poll: Hillary Clinton Seen More Favorably Now Than Before Republican And Media Attacks

Do tell:

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters.

Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. And nearly nine in 10 Democrats say the nation is ready to elect a woman president.  (our emphasis)

No doubt this will only spur Republicans and their media enablers (=cough= Lizard Cillizza =cough= Ruth(less) Marcus =cough=) to even greater heights of non-scandal mongering.  But as much as they flogged the private email account non-scandal, who's talking about that now?  We believe the same will be true with the Clinton Foundation non-scandal, except that the negative media coverage is encouraging donors to back off, to the detriment of people around the world who benefit from the Foundation's charities.  Nice work, dicks.

Here's a clue for the media:  most people have become inured to this.  They had eight years of Republicans and the media trying to impugn and impeach the Clintons.  People have observed and lived with the Clintons for nearly 25 years, and guess what:  they've made up their minds about them already.  More importantly, they see the cruel, reactionary policies and feather-weight alternatives on the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party side, and they're sentient enough to know what's important and what's not, unlike your "mainstream media."

The Washington Media Narrative - High Broderism At Work

Paul Krugman ponders why President Obama, despite consequential progress in health care reform, and major steps in financial system reform and climate policy, fails to get the love from the public he most likely deserves.  Hmmm... could it be the media narrative?

Part of the answer may be Mr. Obama’s relatively low approval rating. But this mainly reflects political polarization — strong approval from Democrats but universal opposition from Republicans — which is more a sign of the times than a problem with the president. Anyway, you’re supposed to judge presidents by what they do, not by fickle public opinion.

A larger answer, I’d guess, is Simpson-Bowles syndrome — the belief that good things must come in bipartisan packages, and that fiscal probity is the overriding issue of our times. This syndrome persists among many self-proclaimed centrists even though it’s overwhelmingly clear to anyone who has been paying attention that (a) today’s Republicans simply will not compromise with a Democratic president, and (b) the alleged fiscal crisis was vastly overblown. 

The result of the syndrome’s continuing grip is that Mr. Obama’s big achievements don’t register with much of the Washington establishment: he was supposed to save the budget, not the planet, and somehow he was supposed to bring Republicans along.

A perfect example of this syndrome was on display on the editorial page of the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle, a once-reviled bastion of the "liberal media" that is now a disagreeable repository of neo-conservative former Bush Assministration speechwriters, rape trivialists, and assorted right-wing nuts, all mixed with "centrists" like Ruth Marcus.  (This syndrome has been dubbed "Broderism", in recognition of the lifelong work of bipartisanship- for- bipartisanship- sake guru, the late Bezos Bugle writer David "Meh" Broder, who never met a position that couldn't be compromised.)  Here's a paragraph from Marcus' op/ed Saturday, referring to a recent Pew report on the increasing polarization of American politics:

To read the report is to be struck by the pragmatic attitude of the majority of Americans and by their simultaneous abdication of responsibility to the extremes — and, with it, power. This sensible center is willing to compromise; half said they’d be willing to split the difference 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. 

But the centrist majority isn’t inclined to translate this attitude into action. “On measure after measure — whether primary voting . . . volunteering for or donating to a campaign — the most politically polarized are more actively involved in politics, amplifying the voices that are the least willing to see the parties meet each other halfway,” Pew reported.  (our emphasis)

"This sensible center..."?!?!?  Holy myopia, Batman!  There is a sensible center in American politics today, Ms. Marcus, and it's occupied by... the Democratic Party.  You know, the party that passed the Heritage Foundation's idea of health care reform;  the party that represents the mainstream view on climate change, same-sex marriage, gun violence, minimum wage, equal pay, and so many other issues. The Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party has moved so far to the right that splitting "the difference 50/50" would entail essentially enacting a right-wing agenda after two elections in which that agenda was soundly defeated!  (Some of us would say, if only Democrats had been less centrist and more true to progressive values, we might have had public option health care,  a more robust stimulus, and some banksters serving time behind bars.)  The "sensible center" folks that pollsters are finding may not know it, but they support policies of the Democratic Party far more than those of the Republicans.  They might not like splitting the difference 50/50 if someone (gosh, the media?) were to explain to them exactly what that would mean, or if it was even possible.

This is exactly the Washington establishment syndrome that Krugman was pointing to in his op/ed, and why President Obama gets little credit for big achievements and lots of soulless nitpicking from the likes of the Bezos Bugle and Ms. Marcus.

"Against Fires and Fire Hoses"

Jonathan Chait writes in New York Magazine about the angst exhibited on the editorial pages of the once great Washington Post  Bezos Bugle about the decision by Senate Democrats to scale back the filibuster in the face of unrelenting Republican obstruction and sabotage:

The more prevalent threat is that scaling back the filibuster will worsen bipartisan relations. The Washington Post editorial page, and two of its centrist columnists, Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank, all excoriate Senate Democrats for what the Post calls “accelerant of poisonous partisanship.” They argue that weakening the filibuster will create more partisan rancor, undaunted by the fact that partisan polarization and use of the filibuster have risen precisely in tandem.

The bizarre, defining feature of this argument is that, unlike the crocodile tears being shed by Republicans, the centrist Establishmentarians all take the view that the Republican judicial blockade was completely unacceptable. They argue that the solution to the unacceptable blockade is that, as the Post piously insists, “Both parties should have stepped back and hammered out a bipartisan compromise reform.”

That Republicans did not offer to compromise or in any way back down from the stance the Post calls unacceptable is a fact so fatal to this argument that none of the three writers in any way acknowledges it. I would agree that a 5o-vote threshold for lifetime judicial appointments represents a sub-optimal arrangement. It would be better if there were some way for the Senate to filter out extreme nominees without having the power to wantonly blockade a vital court for nakedly partisan reasons. Given the refusal of Republicans to back down, I prefer majoritarianism to the existing alternative. The Establishmentarians refuse to grapple with the trade-off. They are against fires and fire hoses alike.  (our emphasis)

Charles Pierce also had this reaction to the Bezos Bugle's pearl-clutching "Civility Fairy" Marcus:

I believe that somebody who looks quite like me -- and, oddly enough, was wearing my socks -- predicted yesterday that Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post would not take well the adjustment of the Senate rules whereby Barack Obama will actually get to be president for a couple of years. The Civility Fairy did not disappoint.  (our emphasis)

Anyone who maintains the notion that the power-for-power's-sake Republican party, in the instant following their becoming a majority and regardless of whatever precedent had been set or broken, would not run amok with Senate rules to lock in every advantage, as they already have with existing House rules, should not be allowed near sharp objects or open flames. Also, as we noted the other day, nearly half of all nominees filibustered since the beginning of the Republic have been President Obama's.  The anti- fires- and- fire- hoses crowd over at the Bugle may be shocked (shocked!) that this era is over, but it is over, and thank God (and Harry Reid) for that.