#fox-news/person/james-comey

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

David Pepper

* * * *

PARDON THEM ALL!!!

TCinLA

Dec 06, 2024

Yesterday, the news was that President Biden’s senior aides have been “conducting a vigorous internal debate” as to whether Biden should issue preemptive pardons to current and former public officials who could become targets for Donald Trump’s desire for vengeance against those he believes thwarted him, following his return to the White House.

Today, it became known that it is not just “senior aides” who are engaged in this discussion. President Biden is personally and directly involved in the process.

This is a serious prospect.

The Biden Administration is concerned that these current and former officials ould find themselves facing inquiries and even indictments. The sense of alarm has only accelerated since Trump announced the appointment of Kash Patel to lead the FBI, since Patel has publicly vowed to pursue Trump’s critics and even went so far as to publish an Enemies List.

Weaponizing the FBI against domestic political opponents doesn’t have to end with jail time. The FBI can do immense damage to people’s lives even if they are never accused of a crime; There are plenty of examples of what can happn when the Bureau has mistakenly zeroed in on the wrong suspects in high-profile cases. In the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the spotlight ruined the life of the security guard Richard Jewell; there is also the post-9/11 anthrax investigation that turned biodefense researcher Dr. Steven Hatfill’s life upside down before the bureau realized it had the wrong man.

Being the target of an FBI investigation, even if it leads nowhere, can cost the target hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills, upend families, end careers and lead to federal charges, like lying to a federal agent, that are all but unrelated to the original investigation.

As to who might be on the pardon list, Patel’s Enemies List is a good place to start.

Patel laid out his plans in a 2023 book titled Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for our Democracy. In this work, he breathlessly described the Deep State as a “coordinated, ideologically rigid force independent from the people that manipulates the levers of politics and justice for its own gain and self-preservation.” It is run “by a significant number of high-level cultural leaders and officials who, acting through networks of networks, disregard objectivity, weaponize the law, spread disinformation, spurn fairness, or even violate their oaths of office for political and personal gain, all at the expense of equal justice and American national security.” He added, “They are thugs in suits, nothing more than government gangsters.” And he inveighed that this is “a cabal of unelected tyrants.”

In his book, Patel called for mounting “investigations” to “take on the Deep State.” In an appendix, Patel presented a list of 60 supposed members of the Deep State. He noted this roster did not include “other corrupt actors,” such as California Democrats Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, “the entire fake news mafia press corps,” and former GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan - when Patel worked for the GOP-controlled House intelligence committee, he had run-ins with Ryan over Patel leaking information to a Fox News reporter; this must mean that Ryan was a Deep State operative.

Patel’s list names what would be for a MAGA activist the obvious purported cabalists: President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former CIA chief John Brennan, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and former or current FBI directors Chris Wray, Robert Mueller, and James Comey. This also includes Bill Barr, John Bolton, Pat Cipollone, Mark Esper, Sarah Isgur Flores (head of communications for Tttorney general, Jeff Sessions), Alyssa Farah Griffin, and Stephanie Grisham. Oher Republicans include: Robert Hur, the US attorney who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents; Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked for Mark Meadows, the final White House chief of staff during the first Trump presidency; Charles Kupperman, Ryan McCarthy,Pat Philbin, Rod Rosenstein, (deputy attorney general for Trump who set up the Mueller invetigatio, and Miles Taylor, a Department of Homeland Security official who first announcedthein-house “resistance” to Trump.

White House officials are carefully weighing the extraordinary step of handing out blanket pardons to those who’ve committed no crimes, both because it could suggest impropriety, only fueling Trump’s criticisms, and because those offered preemptive pardons may reject them.

Those under consideration include Jan. 6 Committee members Sen.-elect Adam Schiff and former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney. Also mentioned is Dr. Anthony Fauci.

That the conversations are taking place at all reflects growing anxieties among high-level Democrats about just how far Trump’s reprisals could go once he returns to power. At issue is whether to take Trump seriously and literally when it comes to his prospective revenge tour.

End-of-administration pardons are always politically fraught. But President George H.W. Bush’s intervention to spare former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Bill Clinton’s pardon of financier and donor Marc Rich seem quaint compared with what Biden officials are grappling with as Trump returns to the presidency with lieutenants plotting tribunals against adversaries.

The White House is facing contradictory pressures from Capitol Hill. Some longtime Democratic lawmakers have talked favorably about the precedent of former President Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon, issued before any charges were filed against him.

“If it’s clear by January 19 that [revenge] is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that’s really what our country is going to need next year,” Sen. Ed Markey said on WGBH last week.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.), a close Biden ally who hosted the president in his district shortly before the election, issued a plea Wednesday for Biden to offer blanket pardons. “This is no hypothetical threat. The time for cautious restraint is over. We must act with urgency to push back against these threats and prevent Trump from abusing his power.”

Other lawmakers, I’m told, have been just as emphatic in private with Biden’s aides in calling for preemptive pardons.

However, some congressional Democrats, including those who may be in Trump’s political crosshairs, are uneasy about the idea of being granted a pardon they’re not seeking.

“I would urge the president not to do that,” Schiff said. “I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary.”

Cheney and Fauci did not respond to requests for comment.

Some senior Democrats I spoke with, however, wonder how many of those facing retribution are adopting a version of the vote-no-hope-yes mantra that often surrounds difficult legislative votes. Which is to say: Some may publicly oppose preemptive pardons, for reasons of innocence or precedence, while privately hoping the president offers legal protection.

What has some Biden aides particularly concerned is that even the threat of retaliation could prove costly to individuals because they’d be forced to hire high-priced lawyers to defend themselves in any potential investigation.

Especially for those officials without significant means, the specter of six-figure legal bills in the coming years is unnerving. Some Biden appointees, I’m told by people facing scrutiny, are already considering taking the best-paying jobs next year in part to ensure they have the resources to defend themselves against any investigations.

Adding to Biden’s challenge in the final weeks of his presidency is the pressure he’s also feeling from Democrats who want him to offer the same generous clemency to those less privileged that he handed his son.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) invoked Hunter Biden’s pardon this week in calling on the president to, on a case-by-case basis, spare “the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses.”

John Dean posted yesterday at BlueSky: “Biden should keep going with his pardons: Trump, Jack Smith & team, Mueller & team, and a blanket pardon for all on Trump’s enemies list for any and all political statements before December 25, 2024! Merry Christmas:-). Take the wind out of retribution/revenge!”

PARDON THEM ALL!!! Because Fuck You, Trump and the rest of your TrumpScum.

[TCinLa]

[politiciandirect]

Trump says Comey ‘lucky’ attorney general didn’t prosecute after ‘disastrous’ IG report

Trump says Comey ‘lucky’ attorney general didn’t prosecute after ‘disastrous’ IG report

President Trump said Friday that James Comey got “lucky” when Attorney General Bill Barr decided not to prosecute him, claiming the “disastrous” Justice Department inspector general report released this week exposed an illegal scheme to strip away his and his supporters’ rights.

The report released Thursday revealed that the former FBI director repeatedly violated FBI policies by drafting,…

[qqueenofhades]

You know, it remains absolutely wild to me how... like... we know exactly who is responsible for this, where, when, and why. There's a short list of like 10 people. It looks like this:

Donald Trump, for being a fascist narcissistic grifter, con man, and criminal, who nonetheless managed to weaponise enough white grievance, backlash against Obama, voter apathy, Clinton smears from the Republican slime machine, and leftist moral posturing to get elected as President and have three Supreme Court picks, all of which were obtained dishonestly;

Mitch McConnell, for being the absolute worst, not to mention proudly on record as wanting to obstruct everything a Democratic president ever does, a power-hungry shriveled racist who refused to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland and then filled that seat with Neil Gorsuch, colluded with Trump to force Anthony Kennedy to suddenly retire and install drunken sex abuser frat boy Brett Kavanaugh, then jammed Amy Coney Barrett onto the bench to fill RBG's seat, eight days before the 2020 election, in brazen open hypocrisy of everything he had said about SCOTUS and election years, since the only principle that matters to him is maintaining Republican power;

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett themselves, for doing exactly what they were put on the court by theocratic dark money fundamentalist operatives to do, and joining Bush-era fascists Thomas, Roberts, and Alito to overrule Roe vs Wade, as the culmination of decades of deliberate and openly stated Republican policy;

Rupert Murdoch and the Fox News disinformation ecosystem, for creating the alternate reality that made Trump possible and continues to empower his sycophants, supporters, cronies, and other bad actors, and generated much of the anti-Clinton slime and smears that made their way into the mainstream, were endlessly repeated by so-called respectable media outlets like the NY Times, and poisoned the American electorate, already disposed to misogyny, against the most qualified (and historic) Democratic Presidential candidate there has likely ever been;

James Comey, for deciding to issue the "we are still investigating HER EEEEMAILS!" letter a week before the 2016 election, which took just enough off Clinton's increasingly narrow margins to put Trump over the top thanks to the rigged and racist Electoral College, which has often functioned exactly as designed in helping non-popular-vote-winning Republican presidents into power;

Vladimir Putin, for running a well-attested and repeatedly confirmed wide-ranging disinformation and interference campaign in the 2016 election to boost Trump, the Kremlin's pet stooge, and discredit Clinton, as part of his overall and equally well-attested scheme to disrupt and destroy Western liberal democratic institutions and boost Russian power;

And like... in terms of direct, locatable, empirically provable concrete responsibility, that's it. I'm even being charitable and leaving Bernie off this list, though I feel that he played a major part in creating both the 2016 clusterfuck and the "I'm too good to ever vote unless for my perfect socialist messiah" attitude that now prevails among much of the Online Left. That is a small number of names. Their actions are all verifiable in public records and a wide variety of news sources, both partisan and non-partisan. (Protip, anything you can only find in one news source that precisely matches your own ideological beliefs is, uh, deeply suspect.) I'm a historian. I work with verifiable facts and evidence, even if they might lead me to conclusions that I personally don't like. And any wide-sweeping broad generalisation, with absolutely no specific evidence or sources cited, is... not how it works and will get you a bad mark on an essay or research project every time.

So against this short list of 8 people, all demonstrably bad actors with bad motivations, what does your average Online Leftist do? They blame Obama, who "said he would codify Roe vs Wade and didn't!" Well, you might say, did Obama ever have a filibuster-proof pro-choice majority in the Senate? No, he didn't, but that's not an excuse, it just means he and Harry Reid didn't try hard enough (this already after McConnell's announcement about making Obama a one-term president and obstructing everything). Obama had the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression on his hands, and then spent all his political capital passing the Affordable Care Act, lost the House in 2010 as a result and the Senate in 2014, and which, despite being an actual, y'know, codified law, has been subject to literally hundreds of Republican challenges to gut, reverse, or overrule it as much as possible? YOU'RE JUST MAKING EXCUSES! WHO CARES ABOUT THE ECONOMY? OBAMA COULD HAVE DONE IT IF HE CARED AND FORESAW THE FUTURE!

Likewise, the left's other favorite scapegoat is RBG, for not "retiring in time" or otherwise precisely predicting the moment of her own death and who would be in office at the time. Literally no blame for McConnell, the one who actually and deliberately crammed the three illegitimate justices onto the bench in defiance of all protocol and precedent. So let's see... the so-called progressives are blaming a Democratic black man and a liberal Jewish woman for the actions of a bunch of evil Republican white men. Or the other laughable false equivalence I saw yesterday, which claimed that ever since the Democrats were elected in 2020, civil rights, LGBT rights, and now abortion rights were being stripped away (with the clear implication that it was their fault). This just happened on its own, I guess, and not because specific Republican-controlled state legislatures and the Republican-packed Supreme Court had deliberately done this as a strategy of pursuing and consolidating fascist power even after Trump's forced departure from the scene. Name one non-Joe Manchin/Kyrsten Sinema instance of the Democrats actively doing the same thing. I will wait.

This is not even to mention the leftists repeating straight-up QAnon propaganda about how Joe Biden is a racist sexist child molester and, I quote, "the literal scum of the earth." There are legitimate policy and performance grounds to criticise Biden on: his speech yesterday said all the right things, but it remains to be seen how much of a promised "whole of government" action will actually be made, including the available powers of the executive branch to which Biden, as chief executive, has access. His personal response has, at times, likewise seemed slow and flat-footed. But the Online Leftists have abandoned all pretense of a rational and reality-based critique, in favor of hurling the most overheated personal moral slanders possible, like the Puritans at a witch-burning. Again, I ask, we're supposed to believe that these are the progressives?

I saw a stat recently about how only 23% of American adults use Twitter. That is... not even one quarter of the country. Out of that, the Online Leftists are only a tiny percentage. These ideas are not popular or universal or just something that "everyone believes" outside of a carefully curated echo chamber. It may feel all-encompassing, but it's not, and frankly, its denizens seem to be interested in anything except building workable, practical coalitions, if it would mean taking any criticism or compromising on their exalted ideals (which, as I have noted throughout this post, really aren't as great as they seem). As I've said before, my own political views are as far left as it's possible to go, and yet, I doubtless will continue to receive more messages like the charming anon from the other day who told me to kill myself for being "bootlicking slime." This is how they like to communicate with people who otherwise agree with them on every policy level (at least as outwardly stated and certainly not as practiced). This... kind of seems like a problem.

I've likewise written before about how ideological revolutions to drastically remake societies with the Right Idea have never, ever succeeded, and only bring more pain, suffering, and death. To all those people preaching "revolution!" as the solution: you realize that all the idealistic young students manning the barricades in Les Miserables get shot, right? And that it's not an actual, legitimate political plan, not least because it isn't a plan? It's a reactive coping-mechanism magical-thinking wish that everything bad would just magically disappear in a burst of glory, and everything would be better now. It's comforting to daydream about, but it's not something any sane, rational adult really puts any stock in, since it's never something that has ever worked in history. What revolution? How? When? Surely you don't mean like the January 6 rioters, unless you do, since overthrowing the illegimate government with overwhelming violence is, oops, once again straight out of the right-wing playbook. Still waiting for those promised progressive ideals!

Basically, even in the unlikely event that they actually acquired it, I wouldn't trust the current crop of Online Leftists with power any more than I trust the Republicans, despite them outwardly sharing my beliefs and values. They haven't proven that they're interested in anything except punishing those who don't hold their exact narrow and rigid idea of "moral" views, blaming other people who again, think largely or entirely like them, threatening or using violence against anyone who disagrees with them, and finding ways to constantly excuse and ignore the actual perpetrators of illiberal Christofascism. All, again, while claiming to be progressive! Like the AO3 anti crowd, who thinks that perfect morality in the world can be achieved by aggressively and abusively policing the fiction that people write for fun in their free time, it's about using cult-like techniques and tactics to position the entire outside world as the morally inferior enemy and building in-group solidarity by attacking them. Which seems like, oh, I dunno... Trump supporters. Again. Womp womp.

I don't know. Call me an old person; I definitely am. But as terrible and cynical and generationally damaging as the Dobbs decision is, and how it represents the greatest legal denial of personhood and autonomy to American women in most of our lifetimes, there's something even worse about seeing the generation who claims to "know better" blaming the people who opposed it, excusing the people who did it, and then going straight into more nonsense about why it's not actually bad and/or twisting themselves into pretzels to invent the hypothetical (white, rich) woman who somehow won't be affected by this. Maybe that's just me in thinking that is a profoundly flawed and wrong response on literally every level, but you know, I suspect it's not. So yeah.

[yourreddancer]

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

May 31, 2022 (Tuesday)The story presented by the police about the massacre at Robb Elementary Scho

ol in Uvalde, Texas, was that a teacher propped open the door the murderer used to enter the building. In fact, the teacher had propped the door open but slammed it shut and called the police because the shooter was firing a weapon outside. The door did not lock as it should have.

Today, Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, the Uvalde school district police chief in charge during the massacre, was sworn in as a Uvalde city council member. The Uvalde mayor said in a statement: “Out of respect for the families who buried their children today, and who are planning to bury their children in the next few days, no ceremony was held.” 

News reports today said that the Uvalde police stopped cooperating with the Texas Department of Public Safety investigation after TxDPS director Colonel Steven McCraw on Friday told reporters that the police made “the wrong decision” and had not acted in accord with protocol, suggesting they had already come to a conclusion, but TxDPS later said that it was only Arredondo who was not responding to their requests. The Department of Justice is also reviewing the police response to the mass shooting.

After six hours of deliberation, a federal jury today acquitted Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman of making a false statement to the FBI. This is the outcome of the Trump administration’s attempt to discredit the investigation into the ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

In May 2019, then–attorney general William Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation to see if it was “lawful and appropriate.” This was a pretty transparent attempt to salt the media with stories about how Trump was being persecuted by Democrats and how the connections between his campaign and Russian operatives were, as he said, a “hoax.” 

Using “investigations” to sway public opinion has been a Republican tactic since House Speaker Newt Gingrich ran investigations about "voter fraud" in the 1990s. Those investigations never turned up any evidence, but the constant news coverage convinced many voters that voter fraud was a huge problem. Ditto with Benghazi, and Hillary's emails. Trump tried to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to say he was investigating Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine.

Durham’s investigation seemed to be in this vein. Although a Department of Justice inspector concluded that the investigation had been begun properly and the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed that conclusion, in summer 2020, Barr publicly disagreed, saying that the Russia probe was “one of the greatest travesties in American history” and that Durham’s job was not to “prepare a report” but to establish criminal violations that would lead to prosecutions. Trump supporters expected that Durham’s report would help Trump in 2020, and although DOJ policy is to avoid roiling the country in the 60 days before an election, Barr said that he would feel free within that period to release the results of Durham’s investigation. 

In September 2020, then–White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that he had seen “additional” documents from Durham’s investigation that spell “trouble” for former FBI officials who began the inquiry into the ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. "Additional documents that I’ve been able to review say that a number of the players, the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys, and even others in the administration previously are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act and I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously," Meadows said.

That month, a top aide to Durham resigned from the investigation, allegedly out of concerns about political pressure. A Republican congressional aide told Axios: “This is the nightmare scenario. Essentially, the year and a half of arguably the number one issue for the Republican base is virtually meaningless if this doesn't happen before the election.”

But it was not until September 2021, days before the statute of limitations ran out, that Durham announced a grand jury indictment of Michael Sussman, a lawyer working for the Clinton campaign, for lying to the FBI. Sussman worked for the same law firm that represented the campaign, and he took to the FBI the information that cybersecurity security experts had uncovered a possible computer link between Russia’s Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank and Trump Tower.

Durham said Sussman had lied to the FBI by saying he was not working for a client when he alerted them to the issue. Sussman denies he said he did not have a client, and identified himself as working for the cybersecurity experts. In his indictment, Durham said the cybersecurity experts did not believe their own suggestion of connections between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower and were trying to hurt candidate Trump. They responded by accusing Durham of editing their emails misleadingly and stood behind their earlier conclusions. In any case, the DOJ inspector general concluded that the FBI investigation started over something completely different: a boast from a member of the Trump  campaign to an informant that the campaign had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

In a court filing in February 2022, Durham chummed the waters by vaguely suggesting that one of the cybersecurity experts, who was working for the White House as part of a cybersecurity contract, “exploited” his access there to find “derogatory information” about Trump. This was false, and Durham quickly walked it back, but ​​Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) told the Fox News Channel: “They were spying on the sitting president of the United States…. And it goes right to the Clinton campaign,” and the former president claimed that Durham had provided “indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.… In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death.”

And today, a jury found Sussman not guilty. Asked if the prosecution was a good idea, the foreperson of the jury said: “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend [on] other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”

But the Durham investigation did accomplish what it set out to. It lasted a year longer than the Mueller probe, and in that time, it manufactured an alternative narrative for right-wing media that undermined the reality Mueller’s report set out: that the Trump campaign worked in tandem with Russian operatives.

 Today, former president Trump hammered on another myth when he sent to his followers an email linking to an article that claims the Georgia Republican primary was rigged. In that primary, the candidate Trump endorsed lost by a huge margin. Trump appears to believe that neither he nor anyone he endorses can lose an election fair and square, which bodes ill for the 2022 midterms.

But Trump has another reason to push the narrative that Georgia’s elections are suspect. Tomorrow, a special grand jury in Fulton County will begin to hear testimony and examine evidence to determine whether Trump or his team committed crimes when they tried to get Georgia officials to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia in 2020.

Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis has already subpoenaed six officials from the Georgia secretary of state’s office, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was the recipient of Trump’s January 2, 2021, phone call demanding that Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes” to give him victory in Georgia. Raffensperger recorded the call.After it is done collecting information, the special grand jury will issue a report to Willis recommending whether she should issue criminal indictments.

[eelhound]

"Every Martin Luther King Day is the same: first, we get the incredibly vapid and insulting celebrations of MLK the harmless saint, like FOX News chastising people for 'politicizing' King (even though King spent his entire adult life as a political activist) or former FBI director James Comey speaking fondly about the Letter From Birmingham Jail (without mentioning the FBI’s own letter to King encouraging him to kill himself, or the fact that the Birmingham letter is a scathing indictment of white moderates.)

But MLK day also comes with its obligatory exasperated leftist responses, as historians and activists try yet again to successfully remind the public that King was not, actually, a dealer in empty slogans about 'unity' and 'togetherness.' He was a radical leftist who despised the Vietnam war and believed in the large-scale redistribution of wealth:

'The country needs a radical redistribution of wealth.' — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

'God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.' — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

...As a leftist, my first urge on Martin Luther King day is to join the pleas to understand the real King, the radical who read Marx and thought the U.S. was an imperialist country, who questioned capitalism and believed that economic injustice and racial injustice could not be separated. But I also know that this, too, risks 'flattening' King into a set of notions rather than a person. They do happen to be the notions he actually held, which makes claiming King for the radicals far better than, say, writing a book called Kingonomics: Twelve Innovative Currencies for Transforming Your Business and Life Inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But I still want to be careful not to use King as a symbol rather than trying to understand him as a flesh-and-blood human being."

- Nathan J. Robinson, from "Seeing Martin Luther King as a Human Being"

[reading-writing-revolution]

Heather Cox Richardson:

August 13, 2020 (Thursday)

Today was another one for the history books.

This morning, in an interview with Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, Trump came out and said it: he wants to starve the United States Postal Service to destroy mail-in voting. Claiming that mail-in voting favors Democrats, he said: “Now they need that money in order to make the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots... Now, if we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting, they just can’t have it.”

The president’s acknowledgement that he is deliberately sabotaging an institution established in the Constitution to steal the election provoked outrage. He is tampering with an election by attacking mail-in voting even as he and Melania Trump have requested mail-in ballots for themselves. And the USPS does not simply handle ballots, it also handles many aspects of our lives: packages, medicines, and so on—things vital to our economy and way of life. “When the president goes after the Postal Service, he’s going after an all-American, highly approved-by-the-public institution,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said.

The attack on the USPS dovetails with the push of the Trump administration to privatize the USPS, a push launched shortly after Trump took office. This week we learned that Trump’s new Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy, retains at least $30 million in holdings of the company XPO Logistics, a private competitor to the USPS, and that on the same day in June that he got rid of a large number of shares of Amazon, he bought stock options at a lower price. Amazon would be hard hit by the disintegration of the USPS. “The idea that you can be a postmaster general and hold tens of millions in stocks in a postal service contractor is pretty shocking," said former director of the Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub.

But the bottom line is that, until the Senate decides to do something about it, the House is powerless to fund the USPS to help it survive the economic crisis sparked by the coronavirus pandemic. In the $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act the House passed in May, there was a $25 billion support for the USPS. But the Senate declined to take up the HEROES Act. When the Republicans could not agree on a new measure at the end of July, the Democrats began to negotiate directly with the White House, which proposed a more limited, $1 trillion bill. Democrats suggested a compromise at $2 trillion, but the White House has refused to budge. With this stalemate, Congress has gone on vacation for the rest of the month, while negotiators continue to try to reach a deal.

Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) noted that DeJoy's new regulations are slowing the mail dramatically. He tweeted: “Here is the truth and I need you to spread it: the voters need to take control. Voters need to [vote by October 22] if using USPS.”

Other Democrats pushed back on Trump in their own way. In his interview, Trump said of New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat: “AOC was a poor student. I won’t say where she went to school, it doesn’t matter. This is not even a smart person, other than she’s got a good line of stuff. I mean she goes out and she yaps.” Ocasio-Cortez retorted: “Let’s make a deal, Mr. President. You release your college transcript, I’ll release mine, and we’ll see who was the better student. Loser has to fund the Post Office.”

The admission he is sabotaging the post office was not the only piece of news in Trump’s morning interview. He made it clear that he is eager to have Attorney General William Barr counter the story that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in Trump’s behalf. Trump wants Barr to reach a different conclusion based on a new Department of Justice investigation. When it became clear that the DOJ’s own inspector general would conclude that the FBI probe of certain of Trump’s campaign advisors was begun legitimately and without partisan bias—as he later did-- Barr launched his own, separate investigation, placing U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham in charge of it.

This morning, Trump indicated he has great hopes that the Durham investigation will establish that former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper spied on his campaign and lied to Congress about it. “Bill Barr can go down as the greatest attorney general in the history of our country, or he can go down as an average guy,” Trump said, depending on whether or not he produced a report that, according to Trump, is not tainted with political correctness. “We’ll see what happens…. It goes all to Obama, and it goes right to Biden.”

The president’s campaign has also launched a full-fledged attack on Senator Kamala Harris, tapped yesterday by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as his running mate. Trump and his surrogates say it is an “open question” whether she is constitutionally eligible to be president. This is a lie. There is no question that she is a natural-born citizen; she was born in California. Trump supporters are trying to argue that because her parents were not citizens when she was born, she is not a natural-born citizen, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency.

The Supreme Court answered this question definitively in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision. The Supreme Court evaluated the Fourteenth Amendment’s first clause, which says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The justices decided the clause established that anyone born on U.S. soil is an American citizen regardless of the nationality of their parents.

The rather tortured argument the Trump campaign is making is that the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes babies born to foreign-born parents because the parents retain some legal ties to their former countries and are therefore not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so their babies must not be, either. This is hogwash. The distinction made in the Fourteenth relates to certain Native American tribes in this era, whose members were certainly born in America, but did not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the federal government and therefore should not, lawmakers thought, be accorded the right to vote. (The next section of the amendment names Indians explicitly, saying “Indians not taxed” should not be counted toward congressional representation.)

What’s going on with these blatant attacks on American democracy?

The Biden campaign pushed back on Trump’s attack on the USPS, saying: “This is an assault on our democracy and economy by a desperate man who’s terrified that the American people will force him to confront what he’s done everything in his power to escape for months – responsibility for his own actions.”

There is something to the idea that the president is desperate. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen today released the introduction to his forthcoming book. It’s a doozy. Cohen claims Trump colluded with the Russians in 2016 to get a “major real estate deal in Moscow…. I know because I personally ran that deal and kept Trump and his children closely informed of all updates, even as the candidate blatantly lied to the American people saying, ‘there’s no Russian collusion, I have no dealings with Russia…there’s no Russia.’”

Cohen’s book, Disloyal, is due out in September.

Cohen says he set up a secret back channel to Vladimir Putin, “stiffed contractors on [Trump’s] behalf, ripped off his business partners, lied to his wife Melania to hide his sexual infidelities, and bullied and screamed at anyone who threatened Trump’s path to power. From golden showers in a sex club in Vegas, to tax fraud, to deals with corrupt officials from the former Soviet Union, to catch and kill conspiracies to silence Trump’s clandestine lovers, I wasn’t just a witness to the president’s rise—I was an active and eager participant.”

[anexplanationofunfortunateevents]

crime and disorder

Previously on Impeaching the Motherfucker: Donald “Individual-1” Trump tried to use the Oval Office to shake down Ukrainian President Zelensky for a public announcement of bullshit investigations, which Trump wanted to use to discredit American citizens and intelligence agencies.

You may have seen people compare Trump’s scheme to have the Ukrainian president announce investigations into his Democratic opposition to James Comey’s various interventions in the 2016 election. This comparison is not wrong. If anything, it understates the similarities.

The story that former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to feed Zelensky about a member of Joe Biden’s family was basically fascist fanfiction by a guy named Peter Schweitzer. Schweitzer worked for Steve Bannon, who led the Trump campaign for a while, at the racist agitprop website Breitbart. His books are funded by the Mercer family. (If you’re struggling to place that name, they also finance the Facebook data thieves at Cambridge Analytica.) As Schweitzer’s lies were being used to pressure Zelensky to abuse law enforcement, they were also being fed to the mortifyingly credulous New York Times. The NYT validated the smear, which gave Giuliani and his crew leverage to increase pressure on law enforcement to take action in the hopes that this would create more news.

These exact same people pulled these exact same moves in 2015 and 2016. Of course, that time the Democratic frontrunner was Hillary Clinton, and Schweitzer’s lies were about the Clinton Foundation.* Those lies were debunked as quickly and easily as the stories about Biden, but they were still validated and spread by the mainstream media, in particular by the New York Times. These stories were picked up by the various disinformation trollbot networks throughout the 2016 election and used to drown out the serious stories about Donald Trump’s many financial crimes. And it gave a partisan faction in the FBI an excuse to open an investigation into Clinton.

Giuliani, by his own admission, was also the Trump campaign’s connection to the FBI’s New York field office in 2016. Now he’s telling the press, on the record, that his scheming in Ukraine is an attempt to manipulate the Department of Justice into investigating Biden.

It’s important to remember what happened from there. Short-term, we need to prepare ourselves to keep it from being so effective next time. The impeachment hearings might have discredited this particular line of attack against Biden, but something like this will happen to whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being. Long-term, progressives need to start holding grudges the way conservatives do, not least because our grievances are real. And we have to do this for ourselves because, let’s be honest, most of the mainstream and nearly all of the “leftist” media would rather be rounded up at gunpoint and sent to a gulag than admit they fucked up in 2016.

We remember the EMAILS investigation because it was so public, but in fact, the FBI was also investigating the Clinton Foundation, despite the Department of Justice telling them there was no case, specifically because their “evidence” was just trash from Schweitzer’s book.+

An FBI investigation is a serious thing, even if the director doesn’t use it as a pretext to throw a presidential election. That’s why the FBI is supposed to take it seriously. They’re only supposed to open an investigation if they have an an actual reason. (To state the obvious, debunked conspiracy theories by a political propagandist are not an actual reason.) Then they’re supposed to shut the fuck up and actually investigate, not preen for the media about how great they are for doing all this manly investigating. This is both to protect the reputation of the person they’re investigating and because you can usually investigate something better if you minimize how many people know you’re investigating. When they’re done, they’re supposed to either charge someone with a crime or to close the case and leave the person alone.

The FBI clearly did not take the Clinton Foundation investigation seriously, because if they had been taking it seriously they never would have pretended there was a case there at all, but it was still a serious thing. The existence of this “investigation” bolstered these false propaganda narratives which were intended to distort a presidential election, and which publicly disparaged a world-class charity that has saved millions of lives around the world.

Worse, the bullshit metastasized within the FBI. It ate into the time and attention of senior leadership, when they needed to be making some genuinely complicated decisions concerning the national security threat posed by the criminal syndicate known as the Trump campaign. Instead, they were finding out what happens if you give a mouse a cookie. The faction of the FBI who were abusing their power to hurt Clinton and help Trump seem to have been emboldened by the indulgence. FBI leadership fell into the bad habit of feeding the press, especially right-wing media like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, hints that something crime-y was going on with the Clinton Foundation. A week before the election, after Comey had upended the election with his letter about the emails, “sources” at the FBI were telling a Fox News anchor that there were about to be indictments over something at the Clinton Foundation.

Reading between the lines of various reports, it looks like these pressures within the FBI to support the Clinton Cash propaganda helped desensitize Comey and his bros to the idea of taking dramatic public action against Hillary Clinton. It never occurred to anyone else that they would pull a stunt like this, not because everyone trusts the FBI so much, but because it is so far from what they do. Nobody expects the feds to start wearing mashed potatoes to the office instead of suits, either, not because they have such great fashion sense, but because it’s too bizarre to occur to anyone. But if there were a handful of agents crabbing every day that they should wear mashed potatoes to work, and those agents kept forwarding around a drumbeat of media speculating that maybe they would start wearing mashed potatoes to work, maybe they start to think it’s not too weird of a compromise if they just start wearing mashed potatoes instead of jackets and ties.

Law enforcement abusing its power to influence elections is bad for democracy. But it’s also bad for law enforcement. As long as everyone understands the FBI shouldn’t be expected to get involved in partisan politics, there’s no incentive for politicians to waste time trying to pressure them. But once they caved to this pressure from right-wing media, it showed that they could be manipulated by at least one side, and the Republicans have been hammering them relentlessly ever since. Trump doesn’t beat up on the FBI – or, for that matter, the NYT – because he’s afraid of them. He beats up on them because he knows, from experience, that it works.

Since all that happened, Trump’s had time to purge his dupes from FBI leadership and replace them with people he believes will be even more likely to follow his unethical directives. So that’s not great.

One major difference in Giuliani and Schweitzer’s scheme this year is that they’re trying to outsource their dirty work to Ukraine, which is a lot riskier and a lot more work. In a weird way, this is a slightly encouraging sign for 2020. Even if the real motivation is that Trump is fucking around with Ukraine to please Putin and smearing Biden is just a side benefit, I doubt it would be happening like this, because you don’t actually need to bring your clown sidekick and his clown sidekicks into your clear-cut impeachable offenses. It’s entirely possible that they’re going global because they don’t think the FBI will throw all the rules out the window to help them this time.

On the other hand, the fact that they’re changing the pattern means it could easily get even worse. Right-wing ratfuckers have already attacked at least two 2020 Democratic presidential candidates with false claims of sexual violence. At this point, it’s still the JV squad,± but once we have a nominee, the professionals are going to get involved. It wouldn’t even take Giuliani’s subtlety and finesse to get law enforcement involved, either, just one pro-Trump sheriff’s office in an area the nominee could have conceivably visited. I don’t have a concrete idea of what to do if things take this particular turn, but I’m legitimately worried that we need to brace ourselves for it.

*Substantively, this comparison is unfair, because Burisma is an oil and gas company with a mixed ethical record, while the Clinton Foundation is a clean, transparent charity that has saved millions of lives. The fact that Schweitzer and the New York Times describe them nearly interchangeably says it all.

+The existence of not one but two flimsy investigations into Clinton actually discredits both of them even further, because it shows a pattern of the FBI investigating a person rather than a crime.

±It’s easy to treat the Warren thing as a joke because this particular ratfucker faceplanted so badly, but the lie itself wasn’t funny. Escalating consensual BDSM into a vicious, traumatic beating isn’t some wacky cartoon trope, it’s a type of abuse that real people have experienced.

[dragoni]

Andy Kroll methodically decimates Trump by using his own words and actions —and those of the Founders. 

Unfortunately, the Founders didn’t envision an entire political party “aiding and abetting” — giving “comfort” to a Mad King.

The only thing standing between Democracy and Law and Order is We The People. Because Republicans have made it clear they’re not going to Impeach Trump no matter the amount of evidence —  #MoscowMitch  #LeningradLindsey  #DevinNunes  #kievMcCarthy  #GymJordan  ...  #GangOfPutin

So it goes in Trump’s America. Not a week goes by without fresh evidence of President Trump’s total disregard for the rule of law and the guardrails of a functioning democracy. 

He pardons war criminals because Fox News told him to.

He takes the position that the president is impervious to accountability for possible crimes.

He profits from domestic and foreign interests who book his hotels and golf at his courses.

He shakes down foreign leaders in exchange for personal favors, 

Calls on foreign adversaries to meddle in U.S. elections

Incites violence among his supporters

Demands loyalty from those around him in office, even if that means ignoring a legal subpoena.

Trump is hardly the first president to make full use of the frighteningly expansive power of the presidency. That bipartisan tradition dates back decades. More recently, we saw it in the vast executive theory used by George W. Bush to justify torture and wage endless wars. We saw it Barack Obama’s expansion of the war on terror, use of a secret drone-strike kill list, and wielding of executive authority to put in place hundreds of new regulations.

“But Trump exists in a different realm. He thinks he is the law, an untouchable and all-knowing sovereign.”

Reality bends to his will. He stands in front of the American people and tells them to believe the opposite of what they see and hear, tells them that he alone can fix what’s broken in American politics.

This is the behavior of a president who believes he’s a king.

“THE SIGNS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN there.“

The gold-plated toilet, the portraits of himself displayed at his properties, and the procession of wives. 

As a businessman he’d treated the law as a mere suggestion, whether by ducking taxes or stiffing workers.

He descended a golden escalator into the 2016 race as if delivered unto the people from high, 

He declared his candidacy in the closest thing to a royal hall at one of his finest properties. 

At the Republican convention in 2016, he told party faithful that no one but him could cure America’s broken politics. “Nobody knows the system better than me,” he said, “which is why I alone can fix it.” I alone can fix it.

Madison and the other founders outlined all the ways such a man could run roughshod over American democracy.

A president, Madison wrote, “might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

(Trump in 2018: “They said they think it’s Russia; I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”) He might “displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it.” 

(Trump to Comey: “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.”) Another signer of the Constitution, Abraham Baldwin, similarly warned against a president who “in a fit of passion” ousted “all the good officers of government.”

What the founders feared, in short, was a president who saw himself as above the law and free from accountability. As James Wilson, one of the first Supreme Court justices, put it, 

A president “cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention…Far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them…in his public character by impeachment.”,  James Wilson, one of the first Supreme Court justices

The Framers insisted on the power to impeach a president for a moment like this one. For the high crime of abuse of power, impeachment is one of the few checks Congress has on an unaccountable president. 

“The real risk would be to not pursue impeachment for what President Trump”

To do so would send a message to future presidents: Go ahead and rule like a monarch. No one’s going to stop you. All hail the king.

“The Framers knew exactly what to do with a president who believed he was a monarch. Do we?”

[usnews1]

Trump's pardon spree deepens crisis gripping American justice

Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN

Updated 2 hours ago Feb 19, 2020

(CNN) - President Donald Trump just appointed himself America's judge and jury, casting even deeper doubts on whether the nation's impartial justice system can withstand his expanding political assault.

"I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country," Trump said Tuesday, after setting off alarm bells with a flurry of pardons and commutations.

Though the President is the head of the executive branch, America's real chief law enforcement official is William Barr and there are dramatic signs that even the loyal attorney general is beginning to feel the strain of the last week's legal tumult.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins reported Tuesday night that Barr had considered resigning over Trump's interference in his department, including the President's tweets that he said last week made it impossible for him to do his job. The story was first reported by the Washington Post.

The President's relish in unveiling a new set of clemency decisions in highly sensitive political cases -- days after his meddling in the Roger Stone sentencing recommendations -- is only exacerbating a Justice Department credibility crisis. That is especially the case since his presidency has unfolded in a whirl of scandal, legal showdowns and questionable constitutional power grabs that are hardly conducive to good governance and respect for the impartiality of the Justice Department.

Trump on Tuesday commuted the jail sentence of Rod Blagojevich, the ex-Illinois governor convicted of trying to sell off the Senate seat once held by former President Barack Obama, among other crimes. He pardoned Bernie Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who was convicted of tax fraud. And in another controversial move, he pardoned a fellow kingpin of 1980s New York, the junk bond entrepreneur Michael Milken, convicted of conspiracy to hide stocks and tax fraud.

The moves were the latest examples of Trump's willingness to use his pardon power -- that many Presidents only fully utilize on the way out of the Oval Office door -- to political advantage in the middle of his administration.

His aggressive use of constitutional but still highly provocative presidential power also sparked speculation he would next move to political associates caught up in the Russia probe. And it was the latest extraordinary example of untamed executive power that suggests the President is feeling invincible now he has been delivered from the impeachment storm.

Tuesday's developments were also a fresh indication that he is intensifying his attacks on institutions that challenge his power, with the courts becoming an increasingly frequent target.

"What the President has discovered is that he can do pretty much whatever he wants, within reason," Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor told CNN.

Trump's latest moves are likely to alarm critics who see his own questionable legal behavior and record of stretching his powers to the limit as a historic threat to the US legal system. More than 2,000 former prosecutors have signed onto a letter calling on Barr to resign for facilitating the President's legal maneuvering. And a group of judges also called an emergency meeting to discuss political threats to the integrity of the legal system, after years of threats from the President.

Trump stuns with audacity of pardons

But Trump, brazen and unapologetic, announced a flurry of commutations and pardons on Tuesday.

His willingness to intervene in highly charged political cases threatened to obliterate the invisible wall erected between the White House and the Justice Department since the Watergate era -- explicitly designed to avoid suspicions of such interference.

The White House did not provide evidence of a detailed pardon process conducted through the Justice Department, and the President did not explain his decisions at length other than to describe the prosecutions as "unfair" and sentences very tough.

Tuesday's moves were only the latest examples of Trump's willingness to use pardons for political advantage.

In 2017, for instance, the President pardoned conservative icon and former Arizona sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio who was convicted of criminal contempt over his harsh immigration policies. He also pardoned I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a case over the leaking of a former CIA officer's identity.

The President's latest decisions came two days before his political trickster, Stone, is due to be sentenced, and days after the Justice Department reversed recommendations for how long he should spend in jail following Trump's angry complaints.

"I'm allowed to be totally involved," the President told reporters before heading off on a western campaign swing.

Trump is undoing years of government prosecutions

In the last few days, in a new activation of always-implied presidential powers, Trump has effectively assumed the authority to undo complex prosecutions, ignore jury decisions and usurp government prosecutors who put years into high-profile cases.

In the process, he's sent a message that convicts with associates who are close to the President politically -- or who can get on Fox News -- will enjoy a more lenient form of justice.

Kerik, for example, is a protege of Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani — who was at the center of the effort to get dirt from Ukraine on Trump's opponents that led to his impeachment.

Blagojevich's wife has often taken to the President's favorite conservative news network to plead his case. And the White House noted in a statement that Milkin's philanthropy had led conservative heroes like Giuliani, Sheldon Adelson and House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy to support calls for a pardon.

Trump's recent interventions in the legal process also opened a window into the President's personal morality and the principles which govern his own attitudes to power.

Kerik, Blagojevich and Milken were all convicted of offenses that the President has been accused of committing by his enemies. Their cases involved a blizzard of abuses of power, betraying public trust, soliciting quid pro quo, fogging tax records and lying to investigators.

It is almost as if Trump is arguing implicitly that such corruption should not be criminal at all, but is the normal behavior of powerful men -- such as himself.

It was also notable that Trump specifically noted that Blagojevich was put behind bars by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a star legal contemporary of Trump's nemesis, fired former FBI Director James Comey. Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby as well and also joined Comey's legal team in 2017. That the President appears to be taking aim at those associations seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

Trump's swipe also represented an escalation of his war on government prosecutors in general -- four of whom walked off the Stone case after the Justice Department capitulated to his wishes last week.

The President has spent years building a conceit that the instruments of impartial justice are in fact themselves corrupt and that their investigations into his own and his associates' transgressions are part of a deep state plot to overthrow him.

It would surprise no one in Washington if, having prepared the public for aggressive interventions in the legal system, the President turns to cases that reflect on him directly, like those against Stone, jailed former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The President insisted on Tuesday that he had not even thought about pardoning Stone -- an assertion that was being treated with skepticism in Washington Tuesday night.

TM & © 2020 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

A WarnerMedia Company.

All Rights Reserved.

[antoine-roquentin]

The public largely misunderstands the “fake news” issue. Newspapers rarely fib outright. Most “lies” are errors of omission or emphasis. There are no Fox stories saying blue states have lower divorce rates, but neither are there MSNBC stories admitting many pro-choice Democrats struggle with a schism between their moral and political beliefs on abortion.

Most of what’s “fake” is in the caricature: of our own audiences, and especially of despised groups. As even Noam Chomsky said, newspapers are “full of facts.”

With one exception.

There is a loophole that involves a procedural flaw in Western journalism’s fact-checking tradition. It’s gotten worse with time. The offending story type nearly always has the same elements:

It involves national security or law enforcement;

It’s sourced to unnamed officials;

The basic gist of the scoop is classified or otherwise unconfirmable.

On August 25, 1986, the Wall Street Journal, citing multiple unnamed sources, stated without qualification “The U.S. and Libya are on a collision course.” The article said the American intelligence community had new information Moammar Qaddafi was planning terrorist acts and we therefore were planning to bomb the crap out of him. Oh, and he was possibly facing an internal coup, too.

"There are increasing signs that [Qaddafi has] resumed planning and preparations for terrorist acts,” the Journal wrote.

Other outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, later picked up the story. International tensions heightened.

The whole thing was a crock. It was an American-generated “deception plan” designed to make Qaddafi nervous. We only found out because another unnamed person with a conscience designed to leak the memo explaining as much (the memo had been written by Reagan National Security Adviser John Poindexter) to Bob Woodward.

I call these stories “four-sourced clovers,” because the number of unnamed sources claiming to bolster such questionable scoops has, humorously, grown over time.

The “senior Russian intelligence officials” story James Comey was forced to shoot down had four unnamed sources. So did this one, suggesting Trump was about to fire the Fed chair. Luke Harding had two for his recent Guardian bombshell.

A lot of these stories begin with a single high-ranking intelligence official speaking to a reporter (or team of reporters) at an esteemed paper like the Times or the Washington Post. The reporters might ask for additional confirmation. The official gives them some names. They call the names.

The names might belong to agency subordinates, or to retired officials now working at think tanks or private “research” agencies. They confirm the initial story in its particulars. So you get four sources, or maybe six, but depending on the story type, it’s really just one story that’s been cycled through four friendly heads – a game of telephone with the reporter at the end.

Incidentally: it’s a red flag if the call is coming from the official, as opposed to the reporter calling the officials. The average intelligence official wouldn’t stop to tell you if your child was on fire. When they start cold-calling agencies, and/or rotating scoops by doling them out to different outlets and papers each week, that’s a huge red flag. When you see one of these stories, check to see if that reporter has a history of national security pieces. If he or she does not, if this transmission of classified scoops is taking place in the context of a new relationship, be extra wary.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

The fallout from the story of Trump calling soldiers “suckers” and “losers” continues. Yesterday, Trump told reporters that military leaders don’t like him because they want to funnel work to defense contractors. “The top people in the Pentagon… want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy,” he said. White House chief of staff Mark Meadows tried to spin this as Trump’s attempt to protect soldiers from “the military industrial complex,” a phrase Republican President Dwight Eisenhower used to warn against funneling tax dollars into military contracts. Trump then retweeted posts comparing himself to Eisenhower.

In fact, Trump has made military build-up and selling U.S. weapons abroad key to his foreign policy. His Defense Secretary, Mark T. Esper, is a former top lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and last year, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared an emergency to push through $8.1 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates after lawmakers of both parties objected to the sale.

Trump’s about-face from boasting how he has built up the military to saying he opposes military build-up seems most likely to be simply another angle of attack against a story that is not dying. Yesterday, in The Atlantic, conservative columnist David Frum published a story titled “Everyone Knows It’s True.” Frum noted that while the First Lady, Cabinet secretaries, and Fox News Channel personalities have all insisted the story is false, the people who worked closely with Trump on military matters have remained resolutely silent.

Frum wrote, “Where are the senior officers of the United States armed forces, serving and retired—the men and women who worked most closely on military affairs with President Trump? Has any one of them stepped forward to say, ‘That’s not the man I know’? How many wounded warriors have stepped forward to attest to Trump’s care and concern for them? How many Gold Star families have stepped forward on Trump’s behalf? How many service families? The silence is resounding.”

Today, Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen released his new book. It, too, spoke of a disconnect between Trump’s public words and his private attitudes. “The cosmic joke was that Trump convinced a vast swath of working-class white folks in the Midwest that he cared about their well-being,” Cohen wrote. “The truth was that he couldn’t care less.” “Everyone other than the ruling class on earth was like an ant, to his way of thinking, their lives meaningless and always subject to the whims of the true rulers of the world,” he said.

Trump’s apparent tendency to treat women as subject to the whims of others was in the news today as his attempt to get rid of E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit is threatening the rule of law. In 2019, Trump denied he had raped Carroll, a journalist, more than 20 years ago, saying he had never met her and suggesting she was making up the story for publicity to sell a forthcoming book “or carry out a political agenda.” In November 2019, she sued him in New York for defamation.

Trump tried to stall Carroll’s lawsuit, arguing that a president was immune from civil lawsuits in state court, but in August, a federal judge rejected his bid and allowed the case to proceed. Carroll’s lawyers have asked for a DNA sample to match against material on clothing she was wearing when she says he assaulted her.

Today, lawyers from the Department of Justice asked to take over the case, arguing that Trump was acting in his official capacity as president when he denied knowing Carroll and thus should be defended by the DOJ, which is funded by taxpayer dollars. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig called this “a wild stretch by DOJ.... I can’t remotely conceive how DOJ can argue with a straight face that it is somehow within the official duties of the President to deny a claim that he committed sexual assault years before he took office.” He continued: "This is very much consistent with Barr's well-established pattern of distorting fact and law to protect Trump and his allies.”

According to University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck, the argument that Trump was acting “within the scope of his employment” when he defamed E. Jean Carroll is an attempt to get the suit dismissed altogether, because the government itself cannot be sued for defamation. Slate’s legal writer Mark Joseph Stern called the move “shocking and profoundly disgusting… and appalling and irredeemable debasement of the Justice Department, a direct threat to the very legitimacy of an agency that is responsible for enforcing federal law.”

The corruption of the DOJ was in the news in another way today, too, as White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that he has seen “additional” documents from John Durham’s investigation that spell “trouble” for former FBI officials who began the inquiry into the ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham to investigate the FBI after the agency’s independent inspector general reported that the Russia investigation was begun legitimately (the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee agreed). "Additional documents that I’ve been able to review say that a number of the players, the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys, and even others in the administration previously are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act and I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously," Meadows said.

But observers were quick to note that the White House chief of staff should not have seen any documents in a pending DOJ criminal investigation. Meadows might be making up the story that he has seen such documents. He has been in the news before for a loose relationship with facts: he represented that he earned a four-year college degree when, in fact, he earned a degree equivalent to two years at a community college. Or his comments might mean the DOJ is coordinating with the White House. Neither is good news.

Three drafts of a report from the Department of Homeland Security reviewed by Politico today give some insight into the upcoming election. They warn that Russia is trying to spread disinformation in the U.S., saying that “Moscow’s primary aim is to weaken the United States through discord, division, and distraction in hopes of making America less able to challenge Russia’s strategic objectives. Some influence activity might spill over into the physical world and motivate domestic actors to violence.” The report predicts foreign cyberattacks on the 2020 election, focusing on the personal information of voters, municipal and state networks, and state election officials. It notes that “Russia already is using online influence operations in an attempt to sway US voter perceptions” and to drive down minority participation in the election.

Even more striking, though, under “terrorism,” the first draft of the report says “Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social, ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United States. Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists—who increasingly are networking with likeminded persons abroad—will post the most persistent and lethal threat” throughout 2021. They will use “simple tactics—such as vehicle ramming, small arms, edged weapons, arson, and rudimentary improvised explosive devices” to encourage violence within the United States.” The report warns that they might well target campaign activities and election events.

According to the first draft report, white supremacists are more dangerous than foreign terrorist groups, which are “constrained.” The next two drafts watered down the words “white supremacist extremists,” calling them “domestic violent extremists.” But all three drafts note that white supremacists have killed 39 of the 48 people judged to have died from terrorism in the U.S. between 2018 and 2019.

None of the three reports refers to any threat from “Antifa,” the loose group of anti-fascist activists the Trump administration often describes as the instigators of recent unrest. Instead, two of the drafts say that rightwing extremists are trying to escalate lawful protests into violence.

The documents were leaked to Ben Wittes, the editor in chief of the national security website Lawfare, a leak that suggests someone at DHS is concerned about the administration’s apparent encouragement of rightwing extremists. (The citation for the first draft of the report is in tonight's notes. It’s worth reading.)

Finally, on Rachel Maddow’s television show tonight, former Trump fixer Michael Cohen confirmed something that many of us have suspected all along. "Trump never thought he was going to win this election, he actually did not want to win this election,” Cohen said. “This was a branding deal. That's all that the presidential campaign started out as, this was a branding opportunity in order to expand worldwide."

Heather Cox Richardson

Notes From An American

[politiciandirect]

IG report highlights apparent inconsistencies in Comey's testimony about Trump memos

IG report highlights apparent inconsistencies in Comey’s testimony about Trump memos

Findings by the Department of Justice inspector general released Thursday are raising new questions about the critical May 2017 timeline leading up to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Comey testifiedthat it was Trump’s May 12, 2017, tweet about possible White House tapes that prompted him to…

[jerseydeanne]

CNN is shocked LOL

“Exclusive: Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering the document in 2016 Russia probe" 

Is he or she going to jail? Possibly. 

---------------------------------------------

I’m so excited I had to bring the entire thing back. 

Washington (CNN) A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign. After CNN first reported on the investigation, the Washington Post reported that the inspector general concluded the alteration did not change the validity of the surveillance application. The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's review of the FBI's effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. Horowitz will release the report next month. Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham's criminal probe.

It's unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI's investigation of Page. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document's meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources. According to the Washington Post, it did not change Horowitz's finding that the FISA application had a legal basis.

DOJ watchdog finds security risks in FBI handling of confidential sources

Some witnesses who have been interviewed in Horowitz's investigation have said they expect the inspector general to find mistakes in the FBI's handling of the FISA process, but that those mistakes do not undermine the premise for the FBI's investigation. American intelligence agencies and the Justice Department have not swayed from their finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election by hacking the Democrats and spreading pro-Trump propaganda online. And even

former top Trump campaign officials

have corroborated special counsel Robert Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign planned some of its strategy around the Russian hacks, and had

with Kremlin-linked individuals in 2016. Horowitz's investigators conducted more than 100 witness interviews in their review. During one of interviews this year, they confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said. The lawyer, who was a line attorney, is no longer working at the bureau, said a person familiar with the matter. A line attorney is a lower level lawyer within the FBI.No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court. The Justice Department and inspector general's office declined to comment. Horowitz report Horowitz is expected to

release his report

on December 9 and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee two days later. The internal, independent investigator so far, over several reports, has criticized top members of the FBI for their actions leading up to and during the Russia investigation. Those IG reports have looked at situations including former FBI Director James Comey's handling of his personal memos about meetings with the President and former official Peter Strzok's anti-Trump text messages. A finding of alleged wrongdoing from Horowitz could further fuel Republican criticism and conspiracies about previous investigators' targeting of Trump associates. It could also provide them a political boost at a moment where Democrats' impeachment investigation into Trump's political quid pro quo with Ukraine has battered the President. The report is said to cover the FBI's approach to foreign surveillance during the Russia investigation, including of warrants used to wiretap Page, who had advised the Trump campaign in 2016. Witnesses are

currently reviewing

Horowitz's findings. Horowitz has shared information from his review with Durham,

CNN previously reported

.

Graham: Report on FBI's handling of Russia probe will be released December 9

The Justice Department has been tight-lipped on outlining exactly what Durham has been looking at. But the attorney general himself said soon after appointing him that he was concerned officials acted inappropriately as they oversaw the counterintelligence probe of the 2016 Trump campaign. Barr's embrace of these theories aligns with Trump's chief grievance that he was the victim of a "deep state" spy operation that has clouded his presidency.

The New York Times, CNN and other outlets have reported that Durham's investigation had become a criminal investigation.UPDATE: This story has been updated to reflect the official is a lawyer who is no longer with the FBI. It has also been updated with information later reported by The Washington Post about the impact of the matter under investigation.

CNN's Shimon Prokupecz contributed to this report.

We have a fox news report 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-finds-evidence-fbi-employee-altered-russia-probe-document

Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI's secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser -- enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.

The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz's comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. "That's locked," Graham said.

The new evidence concerning the altered document, which was related to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.

Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.

FBI AGENTS MANIPULATED FLYNN FILE, AS CLAPPER ORDERED 'KILL SHOT,' FILING SAYS

Sources told Fox News last month that U.S. Attorney John Durham's separate, ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation -- and that Horowitz's report will shed light on why Durham's probe has become a criminal inquiry.

Durham has reportedly taken up Horowitz's findings concerning the falsified FISA document, meaning the ex-FBI lawyer who made the changes is now under criminal investigation. The Post indicated, however, that the document was not central to the legality of the FISA warrant obtained against Page.

One-time advisor of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump Carter Page addresses the audience during a presentation in Moscow, Russia, December 12, 2016. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin - RC165B503FF0

Republicans have long argued that the FBI's alleged FISA abuses, which came as the bureau aggressively pursued ultimately unsubstantiated claims of criminal links between the Trump team and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, were politically motivated. In recent months, a slew of unearthed documents have strengthened those claims.

Just nine days before the FBI applied for its FISA warrant to surveil Page, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had "continued concerns" about the "possible bias" of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages previously obtained by Fox News.

The 2016 messages, sent between Lisa Page and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also revealed that bureau brass circulated at least two anti-Trump blog articles, including a Lawfare blog post sent shortly after Election Day that called Trump possibly "among the major threats to the security of the country."

CNN'S CUOMO FAILS TO ASK EX-INTEL OFFICIALS ABOUT HIS NETWORK'S OWN BOMBSHELL REPORT

Fox News is told the texts were connected to the ultimately successful Page application, which relied in part on information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele – whose anti-Trump views are now well-documented – and cited Page’s suspected Russia ties. In its warrant application, the FBI inaccurately assured the FISA court on numerous occasions that media sources independently corroborated Steele's claims, and did not clearly state that Steele worked for a firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

FILE - In this July 10, 2018, file photo, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn leaves the federal courthouse in Washington, following a status hearing. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing despite more than a year of federal surveillance, and he has since sued numerous actors -- including the DNC -- for defamation related to claims that he worked with Russia.

DISPUTE ERUPTS AS BRENNAN, COMEY APPEAR TO DISPUTE WHO PUSHED THE STEELE DOSSIER

DOJ OUTLINES SLEW OF STRZOK 'SECURITY VIOLATIONS'; FINDS THAT 'PARANOID' CASE AGENT POINTED OUT THAT STRZOK WAS SITTING ON WEINER LAPTOP

"OI [Office of Intelligence] now has a robust explanation re any possible bias of the chs [confidential human source] in the package," Lisa Page wrote to McCabe on Oct. 12, 2016. "Don't know what the holdup is now, other than Stu's continued concerns."

It's unclear whether the confidential source in question was Steele or another individual. "Stu" was an apparent reference to Stuart Evans, then the DOJ's National Security Division deputy assistant attorney general. In one previously unearthed and since-unredacted text message, Strzok texted Page that he was "Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA" in late 2016.

Page is not the only Trump official to allege misconduct by the FBI. Last month, an explosive court filing from Michael Flynn’s legal team alleged that FBI agents manipulated official records of the former national security adviser’s 2017 interview that led to him being charged with lying to investigators. Flynn's attorneys demanded the FBI search its internal "Sentinel" system to find more evidence of allegedly doctored files.

Video

Newly released text messages involving text messages between Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed that Page -- who was not present for the Flynn interview -- had apparently made "edits" to the so-called "302" witness report in the case, which was key to Flynn's prosecution on a false statements charge. Page told Strzok on February 10, 2017 that she “gave my edits to Bill to put on your desk.”

Horowitz told congressional lawmakers in an October letter that his investigation and ensuing report were nearing their conclusion.

FBI BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK TEXTS -- PHONE FROM MUELLER DAYS TOTALLY WIPED

The "lengthy" draft report "concerns sensitive national security and law enforcement matters," Horowitz wrote in the letter, adding that he anticipated "the final report will be released publicly with few redactions."

Horowitz noted that he did not anticipate a need to prepare or issue "separate classified and public versions of the report."

"After we receive the final classification markings from the Department and the FBI, we will then proceed with our usual process for preparing a final report, including ensuring that appropriate reviews occur for accuracy and comment purposes," Horowitz wrote in the letter. "Once begun, we do not anticipate the time for that review to be lengthy."

Fox News' Brooke Singman and Charles Crietz contributed to this report.

I think this is a really good report to see side by side that MSM is lying to you. CNN is still yammering about Russia, so what they took out Facebook ads!  

Americans did this to a duly elected president of the United States.  CNN watered down and sanitize it.  Fox is complaining WaPo did too. You have to ask yourself why? Who is really pulling the punches? 

CNN help pulled the coupe de gras and still can’t see their George Soro narrative is not helping as the PEOPLE of the United States are sick to death of all of them!!  I guess this will be another “ I didn’t see this one coming”. 

[phroyd]

Sarah Sanders, the combative White House press secretary whose tenure was marked by controversy and questions about her credibility, will be leaving after 22 months on the job, President Trump announced Thursday.

The president shared the news of her unexpected departure in a tweet, writing: “After 3 1/2 years, our wonderful Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be leaving the White House at the end of the month and going home to the Great State of Arkansas.”

He added: “She is a very special person with extraordinary talents, who has done an incredible job! I hope she decides to run for Governor of Arkansas — she would be fantastic. Sarah, thank you for a job well done!”

Sanders, 36, has been among the longest-serving senior officials in Trump’s administration. During her rocky stint as the president’s official spokeswoman, Sanders endeared herself to her boss and to his supporters by her staunch defense of him and his remarks. She often amplified Trump’s criticism of the news media, pushing back on reporters’ questions, sometimes sarcastically.

Sanders made her devotion to the president plain in January when she told an interviewer for the Christian TV network CBN that “God wanted Donald Trump to become president.”

But her truthfulness was often called into question, including by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s nearly two-year investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mueller’s report cites two occasions in May 2017 where Sanders told reporters that rank-and-file members of the FBI supported Trump’s firing of FBI director James B. Comey. But when asked about this description by investigators, Sanders backed off that charge. She told Mueller’s team that the first time she made that statement it was a “slip of the tongue” and that she repeated it later in a press interview and it “was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything,” according to the report.

Sanders’s time as press secretary is notable for what she didn’t do as much as for what she did. Under her watch, her principal function as press secretary — representing the White House in media briefings — all but ceased to exist. The White House set a record in January for the longest stretch in modern history without a news briefing, 41 days. It then set a record, 42 days, in March, followed by a third streak, reaching 94 days Thursday.

In recent months, Sanders’ primary public contact with reporters was on the White House driveway, where she would hold irregular and impromptu “gaggles,” usually after appearing on Fox News.

Sanders floated leaving after the midterm elections but decided against it, according to people familiar with her thinking. The president often called Sanders in the morning to discuss news coverage of him, and the two would sometimes speak multiple times throughout the day.

Though she no longer briefed the media, she regularly attended meetings on foreign policy, trade and health care. She was at the table for many meetings with foreign leaders.

The terms of her departure were unclear, though Sanders told staff around 4 p.m. in her office that it was her choice, according to people with knowledge of her comments who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private meeting.

Sanders also told aides that she couldn’t give a commitment through the campaign because of her family.

“I am blessed and forever grateful to @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to serve and proud of everything he’s accomplished. I love the President and my job. The most important job I’ll ever have is being a mom to my kids and it’s time for us to go home. Thank you Mr. President!,” she tweeted Thursday afternoon.

While Trump floated the idea of Sanders running for governor of Arkansas in both his tweet and later during an event at the White House, it’s unclear how serious she is pursuing that idea. Republican Gov. Asa Hutchison’s term isn’t up until 2022.

Sanders joined Trump’s presidential campaign as a senior communications adviser in early 2016 after managing the unsuccessful campaign of her father, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R). She served as a spokesman for Trump during the campaign; he appointed her the top deputy to Trump’s first press secretary, Sean Spicer, and she replaced Spicer after he resigned in July of 2017.

As such, she was a familiar presence in a White House beset by personnel turmoil and turnover. Trump has had seven communications directors during Sanders’ tenure.

In contrast to Spicer, who could grow visibly agitated under press questioning, Sanders initially drew praise from White House reporters for her calm and friendly manner. But those relations began to sour when she started to skirt questions on sensitive topics, sometimes sarcastically, by offering rote answers, such as “I haven’t spoken with the president about that” or offering to follow up later, only to neglect to do so.

While Sanders was well liked within the White House, she also conflicted at times with fellow aides, particularly during the highly chaotic first few of Trump’s presidency.

Early in the administration, Sanders showed her mettle when a group of White House aides were gathered in Spicer’s office to discuss leaks to the media.

Stephen K. Bannon, then a senior White House adviser, defended a group of his loyalists who had been accused of the leaks. These young aides, Bannon railed, were “warriors” for Trump.

Finally, Sanders had heard enough. She stood from her perch on the couch to look Bannon in the eye and became visibly emotional.

“I’ll tell you who the warriors for Trump are,” Sanders said, recalled someone in the meeting, speaking anonymously to recall a private conversation. “The warriors are the folks like me who were there from the beginning, and are still fighting for him every day.”

Then, she turned and walked out.

Phroyd

[bountyofbeads]

Why Does Only One Party Play by the Rules? https://nyti.ms/2MNdCOX

Why Does Only One Party Play by the Rules?

Thanks to Trump’s deepening dependence on “alternative facts,” the assertion of reality is now a viable campaign strategy for 2020 Democrats.

By Jennifer Senior, Opinion columnist | Published October 25, 2019 | New York Times | Posted October 25, 2019 |

It’s that time of the campaign season when some Democrats are starting to feel — as President Jimmy Carter might have put it — malaise. They’re staring at their 2020 lineup and wondering whether it’s a guaranteed recipe for buyer’s remorse. Joe Biden is too old, Pete Buttigieg is too young, Kamala Harris is too uncertain, Bernie Sanders too unpalatable, Elizabeth Warren too unelectable.

All of which may be right. But I have an additional theory for why some Democrats are the vexed and depleted souls they seem to be these days, waking up with lead in their veins and worms in their stomachs. It boils down to this: They can’t escape the sense that they’re living by different rules.

Let me rephrase that: Democrats are acting as though there still are rules, when in fact they’re living in a political multiverse — with at least one parallel reality containing no rules at all.

What do you do when one party stakes its faith — and ultimately government itself — on observable, measurable realities while the other has made the cynical decision to cast these principles away? How do you strategize? How do you cope?

It’s not just that President Trump serially lies in plain sight. (What’s The Washington Post’s latest tally? 13,435? Whatever: Just imagine a whirring odometer on a shuttle to Mars.) It’s that he’s surrounded by occluders and toadies, nihilist tricksters spun directly from the looms of the Marx Brothers’ imagination. (“Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”)

A raft of House and Senate Republicans — including (say it with me) Senator Lindsey Graham — learned that Ukraine’s top diplomat had confirmed the Trump administration’s aid-for-dirt caper, yet still insists the impeachment proceedings are a sham. The acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, acknowledged this same quid pro quo in a news conference, only to proclaim later that none of us understands English. Any public servant who dares say that two plus two just might equal four is immediately accused by Trump of radicalism, treason, witch hunting.

Compare that with President Barack Obama’s relationship with those who inconvenienced him. When James Comey, then the head of the F.B.I., made the fateful decision to announce that he’d reopened his inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the 2016 election, Obama could not have been especially pleased. By imperiling Clinton’s chances, Comey was imperiling Obama’s own legacy too. Yet Obama still behaved warmly toward him, according to James Stewart in his new book, “Deep State.” Why? Because “Democrats,” as Jonathan Chait  explained in his review of that book, “still believed in institutions and norms.”(See review below)

This idea — that Democrats still believe in norms, customs, the rather crucial notion of checks and balances, in government itself — may be the crux of the multiverse problem. Look at someone like Joe Biden, whose essential pitch (in addition to experience, incremental change, working-class-guyness) is that he can work with the men and women on the other side of the aisle.

But this suggests that compromise is an option. It doesn’t appear that the other side is much interested. You have Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, holding a Supreme Court appointment hostage for nearly a year, blocking  almost all legislative debate and passing a bill to protect the 2020 elections from foreign interference only under extreme duress; the world’s “greatest deliberative body” is now a speedway for the Trump agenda. You have the House Republicans informally observing the “Hastert Rule”— named for the former speaker Dennis Hastert, who was carted off to prison for paying hush money to a former student he’d sexually abused — which says bills can come to the floor only if a majority of the Republicans support them. It virtually ensures minoritarian rule.

And you have partisan news outlets with zero interest in reporting the basic facts of Trump’s corruption or the catastrophic consequences of his impulses. We’ve gone from Pax Americana to Fox Americana in the blink of an eye.

Whereas the more traditional media, whatever their unconscious biases, do try to hold Democrats to account. Sure, let’s stipulate that there are more liberals than conservatives at these organizations. Maybe even a lot more. But it was mainstream newspapers that broke the Whitewater story, which led to an independent investigation of Bill Clinton. It was mainstream newspapers that kept Hillary Clinton’s emails on the front page in the run-up to the 2016 election. This newspaper covered Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine too — in May. These pages also ran an editorial about it. That was in 2015.

Of course Democratic politicians — all politicians — distort, gerrymander evidence, even lie and apply their greasy thumbs to the scales. (What was Bill Clinton doing on that plane with Loretta Lynch in 2016?) The question is whether their sins are occasional or habitual, whether their worldviews are Capra or Chandler. The Trumpkins are firmly in noir territory.

Now you have Trump strafing Facebook with campaign ads popping with falsehoods. Elizabeth Warren, meanwhile, ran a Facebook ad with falsehoods that acknowledged they were false midway through.

Which says it all, really.

So, to repeat: What to do about this? Do you capitulate, sell your soul and resort to the same lawless tactics as your opponents? Or do you take the high road and run the risk of losing?

The only guide we have is 2018. But it’s not a bad one. What it showed was that sometimes it pays to go high. The Democrats just have to aggressively sell an honorable message.

Specifically, what the Democrats should say is: Anyone who’s not in the business of peddling the truth shouldn’t be in the business of government. Or publishing, for that matter. Trump once said that he could probably get away with murder. (And his lawyers recently, surreally,  made this same case in a federal appeals court.) That’s what Mark Zuckerberg is doing on Facebook, figuratively speaking, by allowing political ads with demonstrably false content to run on his platform, no matter what other features the company rolls out.

Right now, the Democrats are badly losing the Facebook war. But it’s not too late for them to wage this fight, and in the right way. They could still campaign on the idea of a government that believes in itself — and self-evident truths, like something as basic as the size of an inaugural crowd.

It would be a declaration of values. In the Trump era, that’s not a bad place to start.

*********

Two Candidates, Two Investigations, One Deeply Flawed Agency

By Jonathan Chait | Published October 25, 2019 | New York Times | Posted October 25, 2019 |

DEEP STATE

Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law

By James B. Stewart

During the 2016 presidential election, one of the two major candidates labored under the shadow of a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. That candidate was Hillary Clinton. As we now know, though voters had little reason to apprehend it at the time, there were actually two investigations underway — and, while the probe into Clinton’s mishandling of emails played out in public, the more serious probe of Donald Trump’s secret political and financial connections with Russia remained largely unknown until well after the voting had concluded.

In “Deep State,” James B. Stewart, a columnist for The New York Times and the author of “Blood Sport” and “Den of Thieves,” among many other books, tells the story of both investigations. His account produces few new facts, nor a bold new thesis, that would dramatically alter our understanding of either. Instead, his contribution is to combine the two accounts into a single chronological narrative. He shows how the twin investigations turn out to be closely linked, and not just because an election pitted their subjects against each other.

The F.B.I. agents investigating Clinton’s use of a personal email account realized early on that they would never have a prosecutable case. While Clinton had violated laws pertaining to the handling of classified material, she had apparently done so out of a combination of technical ineptitude and convenience, and the government had never charged an offender without establishing nefarious motives. As a result, the bureau concluded it didn’t “have much on the intent side.”

You might think this decision made life easier for the F.B.I., which would be spared the ordeal of having to insert itself into a presidential campaign. Instead, it made life harder. The reason for this: The bureau contained what some Department of Justice officials considered “hotbeds of anti-Clinton hostility,” especially in the Little Rock and New York offices. Stewart describes how F.B.I. officials encouraged colleagues investigating the Democratic nominee with messages like “You have to get her” and “You guys are finally going to get that bitch.” James Comey, the F.B.I. director during the Clinton email probe, went so far as to tell Attorney General Loretta Lynch, “It’s clear to me that there is a cadre of senior people in New York who have a deep and visceral hatred of Secretary Clinton.” Those agents leaked regularly to right-wing media sources that the bureau was turning a blind eye to what they saw as Clinton’s criminality.

This pressure drove Comey to make two fateful decisions. First, when he announced that the bureau was not bringing charges against Clinton, he denounced her “extremely careless” behavior, as a kind of middle course between what the law dictated and what Republicans demanded. Second, when an unrelated investigation into sex crimes by the former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner turned up more Clinton email 11 days before the election, Comey felt trapped into announcing that he had reopened the investigation.

Stewart shows how Comey violated the F.B.I.’s norm of doing everything possible to avoid involving itself in election campaigns, especially at the end. He believed that failing to intervene would lead conservative agents to leak the story — and would result in his own impeachment by the Republican Congress after the election. As a result, Comey told his staff he needed to publicly reopen the investigation lest he create “corrosive doubt that you had engineered a cover-up to protect a particular political candidate.”

This was a catastrophic violation of protocol — and probably a decisive one; as Stewart notes, the new email story led the news in six of the seven days in the final week before the election. But what drove Comey to this error was the refusal of Republicans in the bureau and Congress to accept and follow the rules. Stewart’s narrative shows Democrats still believed in institutions and norms — even after Comey’s extraordinary intervention against Clinton, he was still treated warmly by President Obama and cordially by Loretta Lynch. Comey felt bound to appease the Clinton-haters because they refused to accept any process that failed to yield their preferred outcome.

Notably, the Republican William Barr enthusiastically endorsed Comey’s decision to reopen the case against Clinton, but then — once Comey became a threat to Trump — cited that very decision as grounds to fire him. Barr’s subsequent elevation to attorney general is an ominous development that hangs over the second half of Stewart’s book.

Unfortunately, his account of the Russia investigation is less satisfying. When Comey briefs Trump on the so-called Steele dossier and its litany of supposed ties between Trump and Russia — including the unproven allegation that Trump had watched prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room urinating on a bed where the Obamas once slept — we see the new president give suspiciously unconvincing denials. “Almost to himself, Trump repeated the year ‘2013’ and seemed to be searching his memory,” Stewart recounts. Trump tells Comey he would not need to pay for sex, and links the charges to other women who have accused him of groping them — charges that have high levels of credibility. He insists his well-known fear of germs would preclude him from enjoying such a performance, even though he could easily have done so at a safe distance.

We also see Trump or his agents dangling pardons before Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, the two advisers who had the closest political contacts with Russia and WikiLeaks, leading to both men refusing to cooperate with the investigation. We come to see Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and supervisor of the Mueller report, as human Jell-O, losing his composure at times to the point of seeming unhinged. Stewart points out that Rosenstein agreed to meet with Trump privately. “Each time, against seemingly long odds, Rosenstein emerged with his job intact,” he notes. “What did he offer Trump in return? What threats, explicit or implied, did Trump bring to bear?”

Stewart also recounts the harsh treatment dispensed to government officials who, as a result of their involvement in the Russia investigation, became Trump’s targets. The Department of Justice publicized an affair between two agents working on the probe. It demoted the Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr after he spoke out, and ended the career of the longtime F.B.I. agent Andrew McCabe. All of these things, Stewart writes, “raise disturbing questions about their willingness to stand up to a president and preserve the long tradition of independent law enforcement and the rule of law.”

However, for all the suspicious patterns he reveals, for all the dots he connects, Stewart does not manage to produce a smoking gun that proves misconduct. We never learn the depth of Trump’s involvement with Russia, or whether he or Attorney General Barr applied undue pressure on the department. If these questions have incriminating answers, the people who hold them probably have no incentive to reveal them and possibly never will. What “Deep State” does tell us is that there are ample grounds for suspicion that Trump’s well-documented efforts to obstruct justice succeeded. To what end? That remains a mystery.

*********

In Tribute to Cummings, Obama Hints at Rebuke of Trump

The former president said that Representative Elijah E. Cummings showed that “you’re not a sucker to have integrity.”

Peter Baker

Oct. 25, 2019Updated 3:52 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Former President Barack Obama, who has remained largely silent amid the convulsive impeachment debate now gripping the nation, offered a tribute to a late Democratic congressman on Friday that sounded to some listeners like an implicit rebuke of President Trump.

Speaking at a service for Representative Elijah E. Cummings, who died last week, Mr. Obama never mentioned the president by name but seemed to draw a contrast between his successor and the congressman whom Mr. Trump denigrated last summer.

Mr. Obama said that Mr. Cummings showed that being strong meant being kind and that being honorable was no flaw.

“There’s nothing weak about kindness and compassion,” Mr. Obama told a packed hall at New Psalmist Baptist Church in Baltimore, which Mr. Cummings, a Democrat, represented in the House for the past 25 years. “There’s nothing weak about looking out for others. There’s nothing weak about being honorable. You’re not a sucker to have integrity and to treat others with respect.”

Warming to his topic, Mr. Obama pointed to a sign behind him referring to “the Honorable” Mr. Cummings.

“This is a title that we confer on all kinds of people who get elected to public office,” he said as the largely African-American and Democratic audience responded with knowing applause and laughter. “We’re supposed to introduce them as honorable. But Elijah Cummings was honorable before he was elected to office. There’s a difference. There’s a difference if you were honorable and treated others honorably outside the limelight.”

As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Mr. Cummings, 68, had become a major thorn in Mr. Trump’s side and was one of the leaders of the drive to impeach the president for abuse of power. Last summer, Mr. Trump lashed out at Mr. Cummings, calling him “racist” and “a brutal bully” who had done “a very poor job” representing a district that he described as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

Mr. Obama was part of an all-star lineup of speakers and guests at the Friday’s service, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

But much of the attention was focused on the 44th president, who has largely avoided weighing in lately on his successor even as Mr. Trump lately has repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of illegally spying on him while in office and blamed the former president for various policy setbacks.

Mr. Obama made no reference to any of that, but did call on his audience to step up as Mr. Cummings did. “People will look back at this moment,” he said, “and ask the question: What did you do?”

*********

Elijah Cummings’s Funeral Draws Presidents and Thousands of Mourners

Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton spoke Friday at the service for the longtime Maryland congressman.

By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs | Published October 25, 2019 Updated 3:39 PM ET | New York Times | Posted October 25, 2019 |

BALTIMORE — Representative Elijah E. Cummings was firmly rooted in Baltimore, but for decades his voice extended far from his brick rowhouse on the city’s west side. On Friday, the legacy of his tireless advocacy brought powerful leaders from Washington and elsewhere to his city.

Mr. Cummings, a Democrat who rose in prominence in recent years for his unwavering pursuit of President Trump, died at 68 last week in the city he called home, the same one in which he was born and lived all his life.

Two former presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, were among the prominent cast of politicians, mentees and relatives who spoke at his funeral on Friday morning. Others included Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate.

Mr. Obama roused the congregation, extolling Mr. Cummings’s values and saying that the congressman had earned the title, “the honorable.”

“This is a title we confer on all kinds of people who get elected to public office,” Mr. Obama said. “We’re supposed to introduce them as honorable. But Elijah Cummings was honorable before he was elected to office.”

“There’s a difference,” Mr. Obama continued, his voice rising as many in the crowd stood up and clapped. “There’s a difference if you were honorable and treated others honorably — outside the limelight, on the side of a road, in a quiet moment counseling somebody you work with.”

Mr. Cummings’s success validates the concept of the American dream, Mr. Obama said, and his compassion and empathy were a lesson that kindness can be a sign of strength.

“There’s nothing weak about looking out for others,” Mr. Obama said. “There’s nothing weak about being honorable. You’re not a sucker to have integrity and to treat others with respect.”

Earlier in the service, following a psalm read by Ms. Warren and a song from one of Mr. Cummings’s favorite singers, BeBe Winans, Ms. Clinton took the stage and thanked members of Mr. Cummings’s district “for sharing him with our country and the world.”

Ms. Clinton said Mr. Cummings never backed down in the face of abuses of power or from “those who put party ahead of country or partisanship above truth.”

“But he could find common ground with anyone willing to seek it with him,” she continued. “And he liked to remind all of us that you can’t get so caught up in who you are fighting that you forget what you are fighting for.”

Ms. Pelosi asked attendees how many had been mentored by Mr. Cummings, and at least a dozen raised their hands. She recalled that he had sought to mentor as many freshman representatives as he could after Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 election.

“By example, he gave people hope,” she said.

Ms. Pelosi had spoken at another funeral in Baltimore on Wednesday for her own brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III, a former mayor of the city.

Earlier in the morning, thousands of grieving Baltimoreans stood in looping lines as the sun rose outside of New Psalmist Baptist Church, which seats 4,000 people and filled up shortly before 10, with many still outside. It’s the same church where Mr. Cummings sat in the front row most Sundays even after he began using a walker and wheelchair.

Mr. Cummings’s body lay in an open coffin at the front of the church on Friday, his left hand resting on his right as mourners passed by and a choir sang gospel music. An usher stood nearby with a box of tissues in each hand.

Elonna Jones, 21, skipped her classes at the University of Maryland to attend with her mother, Waneta Ross, who nearly teared up as she contemplated Baltimore’s loss.

“He believed in the beauty of everything, especially our city,” Ms. Ross said. “It’s important we’re here to honor a civil rights activist who was still around in my generation.”

Ms. Jones, a volunteer coordinator for a City Council candidate, said Mr. Cummings had motivated her to pursue a role in improving her city.

“As a young, black woman in Baltimore who wants to be in politics, he inspired me,” she said.

Mourning residents stood in black coats, hats and heels and sang Mr. Cummings’s praises as the police corralled the extended lines of people who woke up early to pay their respects. Above all, attendees noted, he always looked out for his city.

“He never forgot who we were,” said Bernadette McDonald, who lives in West Baltimore. “He was a son of Baltimore and a man of the people.”

The big names on the service’s agenda, the television cameras lined up outside and the large crowd belied the way many attendees interacted with the devoted congressman, who lived in the heart of West Baltimore and would simply give a knowing nod to those who recognized him on the street. He carried himself like anyone else when running errands or taking a walk around the block.

“If you didn’t already know him, you wouldn’t know who he was,” Ms. McDonald said.

Mr. Cummings saw his profile rise in recent years as he consistently sparred with Mr. Trump, determinedly pursuing the president, his businesses and his associates as head of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Mr. Cummings became a leading figure in the impeachment inquiry and was said to still be joining strategy discussions with colleagues from his hospital bed.

Rhonda Martin, who works at a local high school, said Mr. Cummings had inspired the next generation of Baltimore’s leaders by speaking to students in schools around the city.

“He brought a message of hope and told students that he did it, and they can do it, too,” Ms. Martin said.

Mr. Cummings, whose parents were former sharecroppers in South Carolina, graduated from Howard University in Washington and earned a law degree at the University of Maryland. He was first elected to Congress in 1996 and never faced a serious challenge over 11 successful re-election campaigns.

On Thursday, Mr. Cummings’s body lay in state in the Capitol, the first black lawmaker to do so, and Republicans and Democrats praised his integrity and his commitment to his constituents.

Over more than two decades in Congress, Mr. Cummings championed working people, environmental reform and civil rights. He served for two years as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and frequently spoke of his neighborhood while pushing legislation to lower drug prices, promoting labor unions and seeking more funding for affordable housing.

Even in his war of words with the president, the battle made its way to Baltimore when, in July, Mr. Trump called Mr. Cummings’s district a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” and appeared to make light of a break-in at Mr. Cummings’s home, during which the congressman scared an intruder away.

The president’s insults still anger Baltimore residents. “See? We’re not all trash and rats,” one congregant said as she sat down in the church on Friday.

Mr. Cummings responded to the president by saying it was his “moral duty” to fight for residents in his district. “Each morning, I wake up,” he wrote, “and I go and fight for my neighbors.”

Jennifer Cummings, one of Mr. Cummings’s two daughters, recalled early morning calls from her father on her birthdays and the ice cream they shared in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.

Reading from a letter to her father, Ms. Cummings said her father had taught her to “love my blackness” by insisting on buying her dolls with brown skin and telling her to appreciate her lips and nose.

While she was proud of all the titles he held over his life, “perhaps the most important title you held in your 68 years on earth was dad,” she said.

One of Mr. Cummings’s brothers, James Cummings, said that in one of their last conversations, the congressman spoke of his heartbreak over the unsolved killing of James’s 20-year-old son, Christopher Cummings, in Norfolk, Va., in 2011.

The killing “haunted Elijah for the rest of his life,” James said.

Adia Cummings, the congressman’s other daughter, said Mr. Cummings always challenged her and her sister to be better people. And even though he would nudge her about owing him money, he rarely turned down her requests, even recently making sure that she could attend a concert for the rapper Cardi B.

“He didn’t really know who she was, but he went out of his way, even from his sick bed, to make sure I could go see her,” she said.

Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, Mr. Cummings’s wife and the chairwoman of the Maryland Democratic Party, gave a fiery speech that brought multiple rounds of applause and many congregants to their feet more than once. And while she did not cite President Trump by name, she invoked him clearly, saying her husband’s work had become “infinitely more difficult” in the last few months of his life when he “sustained personal attacks” on him and his city. “It hurt him,” Ms. Cummings said.

Looking at Mr. Obama, she recalled that Mr. Cummings had stood with the former president early and proudly. “But you didn’t have any challenges like we have going on now,” she added with a smile, as Mr. Obama nodded and responded with an appreciative chuckle.

Ms. Cummings said she felt as if people were trying to tear Mr. Cummings down, and that the celebrations and outpouring of love this week had assured her that he was sent off with the respect he deserved.

Two days before Mr. Cummings died, his wife said, the staff at the Johns Hopkins Hospital had wheeled him up to the roof to see the sun and look over the city he never left.

“Boy, have I come a long way,” he said, according to Ms. Cummings.

*********

[didanawisgi]

Today, we begin with a new Full Measure poll on the national news media. As you might expect: the results aren’t very good. For the media. Whether it’s coverage of the Russia investigation or the Covington High School kids, news consumers on all sides of the political spectrum report declining trust — in us. We turn to two experts to analyze the current Media Madness.

Sharyl: One need only sample lowlights from a single month to get a sense of the problem.

In January, a Seattle Fox affiliate aired a doctored video of President Trump.

President Trump: Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.

Buzzfeed: The comparison which shows Trump with an altered face and a looped licking of his lips

The same month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller refuted a BuzzFeed bombshell that falsely claimed Trump directed his ex-lawyer to lie to Congress.

And a January article about Melania Trump in the Telegraph was followed by seven corrections an apologyand an undisclosed payment to Mrs. Trump. One-sided narratives presented virtually unchallenged. National news quoting anonymous sources that turn out to be wrong.

The headline contains the most devastating part: President Trump directed his attorney to lie to congress.

The same month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller refuted a Buzzfeed bombshell that falsely claimed Trump directed his ex-lawyer to lie to Congress.

The Washington Post took us “Inside theBattle Over Trump’s Immigration Order”— only to later admit the article misreported Trump’s actions, a reported meeting had not actually occurred, and a conference call hadn’t happened as described.

FBI Director James Comey debunked a New York Times article about supposed contacts between Trump campaign staff “senior Russian intelligence officials.”

And NBC News reported that Russian President Putin said he had compromising information about Trump. Actually, Putin said the opposite. It’s been a bad few years for media credibility.

A new Full Measure poll conducted for Full Measure by Scott Rasmussen finds: 42% of Americans believe national political news coverage is inaccurate and unreliable. Fewer— 38%—believe it’s accurate and reliable. And 52% say it’s worse compared to five years ago.

National political reporters also get poor scores. Only 26% of those polled say reporters carefully report the facts. 57% say reporters use news stories to promote their own ideological agenda.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen:

Rasmussen: We asked about national political reporters are, are they credible, are they reliable? And you know, a little more than one out of three people say yes. When we ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's happening is we have a world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia. “Gee, that's an interesting fact. I better check it myself.”

Sharyl: And what does that tell you?

Rasmussen: The media has a huge credibility problem and it's always had the problem. Oh, we talk about it differently today. Now we talk about it as a political bias. I think the issues have always been there. I mean, people were complaining about the bias of Walter Cronkite back in the 1960s.

Sharyl: People forget about that.

Walter Cronkite: For it seems now more certain then ever that the bloody experience in Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

Sharyl: It is often argued that Donald Trump created this media environment where everybody hates the media. And then others say he simply understood that environment, and capitalized on it. Which is it you see?

Rasmussen: Oh, people have hated the media for a very long time

Trump: Fake news folks, fake news. Typical New York Times fake stories.

Rasmussen: Donald Trump capitalized on it. He understood it, but he's not the first to do so. The first President Bush when he was campaigning, he actually got kind of aggressive with, I think it was Dan Rather, during an interview because a lot of Republicans weren't sure he had the fire to, to be president.

President Bush 1: It's not fair to judge my whole career by a re-hash on Iran. How would you like it if I judge your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York? Would you like that?

Rasmussen: So he capitalized on that. But all you're doing is tapping into a sentiment that's already there and Donald Trump is playing them but beautifully

Rasmussen says his polling found a good recent example of how many today have come to regard— or disregard— the national media. The Covington High School pro-life students’ confrontation with a Native American activist at a Washington DC protest.

Rasmussen: When the story broke, of the students from Covington high school, we went out and polled right away when the story first broke and ask people what they thought. And as you would expect, liberals and conservatives had different views of whether the high school students acted inappropriately or somebody else did.

Sharyl: So to summarize, liberals probably thought the high school students who were pro-life behaved inappropriately and aggressively.

Rasmussen: Yes.

Sharyl: And Conservatives thought the Native American was the one who is inappropriate.

Rasmussen: Yes. And by the way, conservatives also thought the media was inappropriate.

ABC news: A group of teenagers, some Catholic high school students, seen wearing Make America Great Again hats, appearing to face off with Nathan Phillips – a 65 year old Native American.

Rasmussen: And then we had a week's full of coverage. And as you recall, there was a lot more coverage that came out, uh, about the incident. A lot more videos and a lot more information. And a week later, nobody's opinion changed.

Sharyl: I’m surprised by that because some reporters and in media even apologized that they had been too hard on the children at first or the high school students without knowing the full story.

Whoopi Goldberg: So many people admitted they made snap judgements before all these other facts came in.

Sharyl: But you're saying the public at large, didn't change their mind?

Rasmussen: That's correct. The public at large made up their mind. They knew their sources

Sharyl: But the most overwhelming results came when we asked about the motivation of political reporters.

Rasmussen: 78% of voters say that what reporters do with political news is promote their agenda. They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurately record what happened. Only 14% think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened.

Sharyl: Most people also seem to think reporters cannot be fair when it comes to their chosen political candidate.

Rasmussen: if a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36% of voters think that they would report that.

Sharyl: So most people think the reporter would cover it up because they like the person?

Rasmussen: Right, exactly. So voters are looking at them as a political activist, not as a source of information.

Sesno: An actual report or professional reporter would yeah never do that.

Frank Sesno is a former CNN correspondent and bureau chief. As head of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University, he routinely confronts declining public trust in the media.

Sesno: The public understands fundamentally what journalism should be. They don't understand how it's actually practiced. And that falls to news organizations in my view, to be more creative, more imaginative about how they're engaging with their publics, to both explain what they do to defend what they do when it's controversial and to be accountable for what they do if it's wrong.

Sharyl: After 2016 when so many of us got the election so wrong, we promised a period of self-reflection and correction, have we done it?

Sesno: No, not enough. If we had done the self-reflection and correction better and more deeply, there would be more reporters reporting from more places across the country talking to more diverse audiences. We would not be so in tiredly focused at least in certain media channels and places on the Trump administration and the outrage of the moment. That being said, there is so much news from this administration. It's kind of hard not to do that.

Trump: If we don’t get what we want, I will shut down the government.

Sharyl: In the era of the Trump presidency, can you point to a couple of things you think the media has done right

Sesno: I would start, actually, in the Trump era by calling out NPR. I think NPR has done an exceptional about getting outside of Washington and engaging other voices and people from different sides of the ideological divide to get their sense of what's happening. would call out the New York Times and the Washington Post for making remarkable use of multimedia. So there's a lot of good journalism and good media that's taking place also that, that extends beyond the Trump administration. There is such a thing as beyond the Trump administration.

It may not seem like it as we move quickly into campaign 2020.

Sharyl: I guess we should warn people, hang on to their seat belt with 2020 campaign coming. What do you foresee in terms of media?

Sesno: Yeah, so here's the next danger. The next is everybody for walks right off the cliff of coverage like they did last time. Obsessing over, you know, the, the candidate du jour, the moment, du jour. How will the media be able to arbitrate this mass of people who all want to be president so that the audience can follow it with some degree of clarity, and so that you neither fall into an oversimplified narrative, or a narrative that just revolves around the melodrama of who's up, who's down, and who's making the most noise or tweeting the most.

You can find my list of Media Mistakes in the era of Trump at SharylAttkisson.com