#i worry though that ALL some people are hearing about the dnc is that they refused to host a palestinian speaker

[space-mouse]

strongly recommend watching kamala harris' speech from last night.

she used the passive voice to describe the israeli government's war crimes against palestinians in gaza, and emphasized her commitment to israel's ability to defend itself (read: arms). she also called for a ceasefire and drove the crowd to deafening cheers in defense of "the palestinian people's right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination."

[thedreideldiaries]

Hey, friends! I thought I’d take this opportunity to expound in my political choices a bit - specifically to give some context for my choice of Sanders over Warren. Note for a few of my followers who know me elsewhere: this is copied over from other social media, so if it sounds familiar that is why.

First, I want to reiterate that I like Warren. So, if anyone reading this is torn between her and any of the other clowns who have thrown their sorry hats into the ring, then please: do me and the rest of the world a favor, stop reading this right now, and go ahead and give Warren your vote. I won’t be mad. Promise. If you’re on the fence between Warren and Sanders, though, then I implore you to read on.

Okay, is it just us in here? Cool.

For my friends torn between Warren and Sanders (like I was at the beginning of the primary), I’ve tried to distill my reasoning. As you know, a lot of the discourse surrounding Warren’s campaign constructs her as a younger, female version of Sanders. If I believed that, I’d be solidly in her corner, but a few differences between them make this simply not the case. Here are the ones I find most salient:

1. Let’s look at Bernie’s base. As much as we love to talk about representation in politics, a candidate’s demographic background tells us nothing about who they’re going to fight for. Their voting base, on the other hand, tells you who has placed their confidence in that candidate’s promises.

A good proportion of Warren’s supporters are white college graduates (young and old).

By contrast Bernie’s base is overwhelmingly working class, non-white, urban, and, perhaps most tellingly, young. You could attribute that to naivete, but I think something else is going on here: the demographic group with the most to win or lose from this election are people under 30. We’re the ones who will have to live with the most devastating effects of climate change, and we’re tired of the so-called adults in our lives not taking that rather pressing concern seriously. We don’t care if our candidate is old or young - we care if they listen. Which brings me to:

2. The Youth. Young people in America are disillusioned with democracy - not because we’ve decided it’s not a good idea, but because we’ve literally never seen it in action. We live in a corporate plutocracy where the financial barriers to running for office have rendered most politicians ridiculously out of touch. And Sanders, more than any other candidate in the primary, knows how to talk to young people.

And look - I’m planning to vote for whoever wins the primary. But if 2016 is anything to go by, if the youth demographic doesn’t get a candidate they can get behind, they won’t vote strategically for the lesser of two evils. They’ll stay home, and given what the Democratic party has done for them over the past 20 or so years, I can’t say I blame them.

3. The same goes for his endorsements. I’d be out of my lane if I spent too much time talking about what Sanders wants to do for people of color, but I think it’s telling that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar - three politicians showing real determination to shake things up in Washington - all chose Bernie over Warren. I think it’s telling that AOC cited his campaign, not Warren’s, as her inspiration for running for office (if anyone’s a female Sanders, it’s not Warren - it’s AOC).

4. Sanders is, quite simply, the genuine article. He’s fought for important causes (climate justice, healthcare, workers’ rights) since long before they were cool. He’s *not* perfect, but criticisms of him rarely touch his political history.

Warren’s record of activism is, by contrast, unimpressive. She used to be a Republican corporate lawyer, and while I absolutely respect that someone can change their mind about politics, and I applaud her for doing so, it worries me that what changed her mind wasn’t the Iran-Contra scandal, or the AIDS crisis, or the brutal crushing of the labor movement. It was the realization that Republicans were doing capitalism wrong. I can’t exactly argue with that (show me a Republican politician who truly supports a free market and I’ll eat my beret*), but it doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

*This is a joke. I do not have a beret.

5. Warren’s a capitalist; Sanders is a democratic socialist, and I think the difference is important. Warren supports a wealth tax, and she wants everyone to have healthcare, and I appreciate that she has the guts to talk about those things on national television, but at the end of the day, she’s a proud capitalist who believes the system needs to be corrected, not overhauled.

Sanders is a self-professed democratic socialist, and has built a popular movement around that label. And honestly, I’m not too worried about redbaiting. Yes, it’s a common Republican tactic, but the sentiment of “yes I would vote for Democrats but not for Socialist democrats” is a rare one, if it exists at all. And if it works against any of the primary candidates, it’ll work against all of them. They used anti-Commmunist rhetoric against Obama, for goodness’ sake. Look how much of an advocate for the working class he turned out to be.

Courting the centrist vote is a waste of time. Tiptoeing around conservatives alienates left-wingers and doesn’t actually sway Republicans. It’s a bad move strategically, in that it makes us look like cowards, and morally, because it means not getting very important things done.

Sanders doesn’t want to play the game better. He wants to start a whole new game. Warren’s economics platform seems to boil down to “50s but less racist,” and while that sounds nice, it’s just not possible. We can’t go back there - we have automation now, not to mention a global economy the likes of which we barely dreamed of in the 1950s, and it’s not realistic to try to make that happen again. We need something new.

6. People over party. In a lot of ways, Warren reminds me of the best parts of The West Wing. I like that show, but it was a comforting fantasy - a vision of what the Democratic Party could have been like with a little more gumption and a lot more luck. It never happened because the Democratic party and politics aren’t like that in real life. I have confidence in Sanders because his loyalty isn’t to the Democratic Party. It’s to the American people. He’s proved that over and over again over the course of his political career.

7. Bernie is an organizer. The “not me - us” slogan is very telling. Democracy is participatory. We don’t just need a candidate with a plan to fix everything. We need a candidate with a plan who acknowledges that the people hold the real power. We need a candidate who respects the will of the people and inspires them to get involved. We can’t win this election and stop thinking about politics. We never get to stop thinking about politics. We need someone who can inspire people to keep fighting.

The heart attack was a big deal, but the truth is, it’s never been about Bernie as an individual. His immediate reaction after getting out of the hospital was “I’m lucky to have healthcare; everyone should have healthcare; let’s get back to work.” That, more than anything, has given me the confidence that Bernie wants his policies to last long after he’s gone.

Also, people regularly have heart attacks and live another several decades. This is *literally* why we have vice presidents. If Sanders can get elected and pick a good VP and a cabinet (plus, you know, fill any Supreme Court vacancies that happen to arise over his tenure), his health won’t matter as much, because we don’t need a messiah right now. We need a resurgence of participatory democracy. We need more AOCs to take the stage. We need young people at the polls, not just in 2020, but beyond that.

8. I don’t like to talk about electability for a couple of reasons. One: centrists love to bring it up, usually in the service of talking about how policies they have zero stake in will never work. Two: Trump was supposed to be unelectable, and we all saw how that turned out.

That said: Warren’s currently polling third, which is not a great place to be. And while I don’t share some people’s cynicism about Warren, I have to agree that her response to Trump’s attacks has not impressed me. I’m confident that if Trump attacks Sanders, Bernie won’t take the bait, because he’s so on-message you can’t get him off-message. Like I said: he had a heart attack and immediately spun it back into the healthcare conversation.

And the polls are clear: head to head, Sanders beats Trump. Warren’s chances are far dicier.

9. And the most important issue, without which nothing else really matters: the climate crisis. I’d love it if we could wait for the country’s ideas to catch up to Sanders’ socialist rhetoric, but the truth is we are running out of time. I’m voting for Sanders because I have two nieces under 5 years old and a nephew who was just born, and I want them to grow up on a habitable planet, and they won’t get a chance to vote on that. I’m doing it because I want to have kids of my own someday, and while I absolutely respect the choice of anyone deciding to reproduce right now, I don’t have the emotional energy to raise a family during an apocalypse. And while I like Warren, and she’s expressed support for a Green New Deal, Sanders is the only candidate I trust to both beat Trump in the general and put his foot down to the DNC and their ilk.

10. Foreign policy!

First of all: guess who else hates American Imperialism? That’s right; it’s Bernie Sanders. Significantly, he has the guts to bring up America’s habit of meddling in Latin America’s democratically elected governments, which is something you pretty much never hear about from pretty much any other candidate.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/25/18744458/bernie-sanders-endless-wars-foreign-affairs-op-ed

Foreign policy came up a lot during 2016 primary, with Clinton’s supporters trotting out the bizarre argument that a long history of hawkish policies is better than no policies at all. What with all that, I was surprised to learn that Sanders is actually quite well-traveled and has a long history of trying to mend fences between the U.S. and other world powers: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy/470019/

When it comes to climate change and foreign policy, Sanders acknowledges not only that it requires innovation (let’s not forget his early and vehement support for the Green New Deal), but also international cooperation. From the link below:

“To both Sanders and his supporters around the world, it is impossible to fight climate change without international cooperation. To that end, a group called the Progressive International was announced at a convention last year held by the Sanders Institute, a think tank founded by the presidential contender’s wife and son.

“The network of left-wing politicians and activists hopes to fight against "the global war being waged against workers, against our environment, against democracy, against decency,” according to its website.”

He’s also popular with left-wing leaders around the world, and it’s those kinds of politicians who we need to get us out of the climate crisis.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/04/bernie-sanders-global-popularity-1254929

And finally, to stray briefly into comparison: again, I like Warren, but even so, I like her better domestically than internationally. The progressivism she touts at home comes up short abroad. I’m sure you’ve heard about it already, but I think it’s worth remembering that Warren voted for Trump’s military budget in 2017; Sanders didn’t. She talks a lot about peace, but her history on foreign issues looks pretty similar to that of other centrist democrats. This is a problem not only in terms of American Imperialism, but also because the U.S. military is one of the world’s leading causes of climate change. Her voting history and her cozy relationship with defense contractors have me pretty worried. This article goes into more detail about her history with various foreign powers as well as her general attitudes on American imperialism:

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-foreign-policy

We all pretty much knew what we were getting with Clinton. Warren worries me not only because she seems to align with the rest of the party on our endless foreign wars, but because she keeps her support for the military-industrial complex behind a facade of progressive rhetoric that reminds me of the early Obama years. We can’t be let down like that again. Even if we ignore the devastating human cost, the planet doesn’t have time.

Further Reading - obviously I don’t agree with everything in every one of these pieces, but they offer a leftist critique that often goes missing from other, more superficial problems people bring up about Warren.

The polling bases of the primary candidates: https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/16/most-democrats-are-excited-by-several-2020-candidates-not-just-their-top-choice/pp_2019-08-16_2020-democratic-candidates_0-06/?fbclid=IwAR2G8np2q9N4P6DArdI-gPhA5Wp_SYDZPKQDpDhxVZ4YbwnAEmFd65swMOA

An interesting take on Warren’s policies vs Bernie’s movement: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/04/elizabeth-warren-policy-bernie-sanders-presidential-primary?fbclid=IwAR14wWjYDNuNMrXN7YjVFFFHXmoMWKpDVqBcbPBlQUUrA354iIyRAbKXG30

An opinion piece on the contrast between them:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-democratic-party-elite-2020-presidential-race?fbclid=IwAR3vA54QveM2cCTxQ2BbVXh_IICgTxweKVBLMRjhSFyyAdspnibJ50seDjY

Another one:

https://forward.com/opinion/432561/the-case-for-bernie-sanders-the-only-real-progressive-in-the-race-sorry/?fbclid=IwAR1vwONZ7azJQcoeo_KYNYiJ8ekzHhJsZ4Ms0UzDHI59j7Q6oio-5uJOGcI

Warren’s political history:

More about that from a different source:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/10/why-criticize-warren?fbclid=IwAR0NTP0cRbSnr-a6HCuxE-4SCJZEqU2EAL1Gnx70FME-9UMBg-xYE5t7g7Y

A prequel to the former (beware - this one’s scathing as heck):

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/the-prospect-of-an-elizabeth-warren-nomination-should-be-very-worrying?fbclid=IwAR03d5I5j72s4kQC9wgRSrXnbmWsp_9HUvRWBZwzcfsT9RsZP-lSAX4aPz0

[thatclassicalliberal]

I’m at a crossroads

For those of you who don’t know, I recently turned 18, meaning this is the first year I’m eligible to vote in local and federal elections. Since many of you are older and wiser than I am, I figured I would ask for your advice.

I’m about to register to vote, and I’ve reached a dilemma trying to decide which party to register as. I’ve narrowed it down to a few options, and I would really like to see what any of you think I should do.

LIBERTARIAN  -

Pros:

Seeing as I believe staunchly in individual freedom and economic conservatism, this is the party that best represents my views.

I like the idea of this party as an alternative to a broken two-party system

Seeing as I want to get involved in politics eventually, I feel that this small but rising party would be a good place to let my voice be heard.

“Keeping the Republicans out of your bedroom, and the Democrats out of your pockets”

Cons:

While the party has lots of good people, there are a lot of crazies who are sort of idiotic (Gary Johnson)

The party seems split on some important issues

The party may win a few seats here and there, but since it’s so small it currently has no real chance of gaining power

Admittedly, some positions taken by the party do seem unrealistic

REPUBLICAN -

Pros:

Even though I don’t like the two party system, I feel that the GOP is the most realistic current vehicle in which to channel conservatism

Being realistic, since my state has a closed primary I would be able to vote for who to fill the spot of one of the only two people who will have a chance at Presidency

It seems that as a conservative, unless you vote Republican you don’t really have a voice in elections

Cons:

Like the DNC, the Republican party is also filled with scandals and crappy candidates that the party chooses to ignore out of convenience 

I disagree with the GOP on multiple issues, including their endorsement of Roy Moore

Once again, I hate the idea of a two party system

NO-PARTY PREFERENCE - 

Pros:

This is about to make me sound like a typical 18 year old, but I like the idea of not defining myself and my all my beliefs with a word

I would never have to worry about doing something that violates my beliefs “for the good of the party”

I wouldn’t have to deal with drama inside a particular party

Cons:

I wouldn’t really feel like a part of anything. I wouldn’t be able to celebrate victories for my party or take action by supporting my candidate

My state has closed primaries

Registering as no-party preference seems like a passive move

So that’s it. If you have any feedback or suggestions, I’d love to hear them!

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Wednesday marked the last day candidates could qualify for the Sept. 12 Democratic primary debate, and in the end there were 21 DNC-approved polls, with 10 candidates able to hit 2 percent support in four qualifying national or early-state polls1 and reach 130,000 unique donors (including at least 400 individual donors in at least 20 states).2

The ten candidates who have qualified are: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang.

So now that we have one debate with the top 10 candidates, how’s that change the dynamics? Who could it help and who could it hurt?

micah (Micah Cohen, managing editor): No. 1 benefiter: Us.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Yeah, now I get to watch UVA raise its national championship banner on Friday instead.

micah: Back-to-back debate nights are horrible.

sarahf: Now, now — I meant this when I tweeted it earlier — it goes beyond self interest:

Welp, that was pretty anticlimactic, but I'm actually pretty excited for one debate night (and not just for self-interested reasons). Warren & Biden have yet to face off — and in theory, these are the 10 candidates voters are most interested in: https://t.co/nFc682fqn8

— Sarah E. Frostenson (@sfrostenson) August 28, 2019

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Yeah, it helps people who were hoping to make plans on Friday night. And — just full disclosure here — we think it’s pretty cool that the network we work for, ABC News, is gonna get to host the first debate where all the major candidates are on the same stage.

micah: But Sarah, I assume you wanted a more substantive answer that readers will actually be interested in?

sarahf: Yeah, we’re finally about to watch the candidates people are (theoretically) most interested in!! And I, for one, am excited to see Warren and Biden go head-to-head.

What about you all?

micah: Yeah, that’s true. So maybe Democratic voters are the real beneficiaries.

natesilver: I’m not sure it helps voters, to be honest.

I think maybe it hurts voters.

What they could do instead is put all the good candidates on one night and then all the weird ones in a JV debate. That way, people who want to watch the weird candidates still can, but it doesn’t deprive them of the opportunity to see, say, Warren vs. Biden.

geoffrey.skelley: There were plenty of people in my Twitter mentions complaining that there should be two debates with smaller numbers. I think you arguably could have had Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg one night, and put the other five on the second night.

sarahf: Are we sure we think that’s a good idea? The JV debates were ridiculed on the GOP side during the 2016 primaries. I just think there’s no good way for the parties to handle the winnowing process, and the candidates had 21 polls to hit 2 percent in, so I’d argue these are the 10 candidates voters are most interested in hearing.

micah: OMG, we just got down to 10 candidates, and people are already complaining that that’s too many!!!?

geoffrey.skelley: In the context of one debate stage, yeah.

natesilver: I think it’s kind of been demonstrated by now that a candidate like Castro or Booker can have a pretty darn good night — and he or she is still overshadowed by what the 4-5 main candidates are doing.

micah: But this is certainly an improvement for voters over two 10-person debates.

Even by your logic, Nate.

natesilver: Hell, have the JV debate first, and then have some system where whoever does best according to a poll of Democratic voters gets a seat on the second night.

geoffrey.skelley: Oh, now that’s fun.

sarahf: But OK … to get back on track …

geoffrey.skelley: Story of Sarah’s life as politics editor.

micah: OK, my

take …

This might also be the most obvious, conventional-wisdom take — but isn’t Biden presented with the most downside risk now that the focus gets tightened to 10 candidates?

Instead of having to worry about mainly one top-tier challenge (Harris or Bernie or whomever), he now risks getting outshone by any or all of them.

The assumption behind this, which might be wrong, is that Biden is a worse performer in these debates than the other top-tier candidates.

natesilver: Doesn’t Biden actually get less speaking time, though, than if there had been two 6-person debates?

micah: Yes, so I guess that’s a plus for him?

But I would argue that the narrative power of being down to one stage and one debate (and thus constricting the number of “viable” candidates) maybe outweighs that.

geoffrey.skelley: Especially since he’s the one candidate trying to stay within the time limits when talking on stage.

I think there’s merit to Micah’s case in that it’s in the interest of the other leading candidates to hit Biden, and now all three candidates who are more or less right behind Biden in the polls all get to attack him.

micah: Right, so the chances of a Warren-Biden dustup increase, but so do the chances of a Harris-Biden, Bernie-Biden or Buttigieg-Biden clash.

Or Beto-Biden!

geoffrey.skelley: Booker-Biden, too.

micah: Klobuchar-Biden!

natesilver: Not to be pedantic — OK, TO BE PEDANTIC — but I don’t think anybody is right behind Biden. He leads by double digits in the polling average.

Also, didn’t everyone go after Biden in the Detroit debate? That didn’t seem to move the needle much, though.

micah: But that’s the point — most of those people who went after Biden were “also-rans.”

To me, Warren going after Biden has more potential to hurt him than the pass-the-torch guy going after Biden.

Even Booker or Klobuchar going after Biden has more potential to hurt him than the more anonymous candidates.

geoffrey.skelley: RIP Eric Swalwell.

sarahf: I guess the flip side of Micah’s argument is that there isn’t necessarily an immediate upside for some of the lower-tier polling candidates like Klobuchar or Castro either.

But perhaps I’m not giving enough credit to how the dynamics of this debate will be different than the previous two.

natesilver: Yeah I think if you’re the Klob, you might actually want a night where it’s just you, Biden and some other rando candidates on stage.

micah: Nate, I’m not sure what argument you’re making.

natesilver: I’m not sure what argument any of us are making.

Look, if you think Warren’s gonna clean Biden’s clock, then it’s good for her that they’re finally on the same stage together.

I don’t think that’s good for, like, KLOBUCHAR though, because all the focus is gonna be on the Warren-Biden confrontation.

micah: But the real question here is how do the dynamics change from two 10-person debates with a mix of top-tier and lower-tier candidates each, to one stage with the top 10. It isn’t whether two six-person debates would be better for Biden.

natesilver: Nothing really matters except that Warren and Biden are gonna be on the same stage.

sarahf:

micah: Except maybe it’s bad for the middle-tier candidates too, such as Klobuchar? (As you said, Nate.)

natesilver: From Biden’s perspective, I think the options are ranked this way: 1) Don’t debate Warren 2) Debate Warren on a 10-person stage 3) Debate Warren on a six-person stage.

micah: And from the Castros, Yangs and Klobuchars of the field it’s the reverse? Right?

geoffrey.skelley: I think those three would have benefited from the two small five- or six-person debates. Now, they could be heavily overshadowed, but there still might be an opportunity on certain issues for one of them to break through — Castro on immigration, for example.

natesilver: Yeah, I think Castro or Klob would rather be part of a smaller debate against Biden, where everyone else is not ganging up on Biden, and certainly not where you have Warren around, who’s gonna command all of the attention.

micah: Agreement!

sarahf: OK … so who exactly stands to benefit from the dynamics of this debate?

natesilver: It’s good for Warren to be guaranteed a slot against Biden. Unless she blows it.

micah: And I would also argue that it’s good for the other top-tier candidates — Harris, Sanders and maybe Buttigieg.

sarahf: It’s certainly make or break for those three, but I’m not sure it’s good, given everything we’ve just said about the Castros, Yangs and Klobuchars of the field.

natesilver: I don’t think it matters much for Bernie either way; he’s always a highly competent, but not spectacular debater, and the circumstances don’t seem to matter much.

micah: That’s fair.

And it’s obviously good for Klobuchar, Castro et. al. in the sense that they made the debate, but they probably would have preferred two nights.

natesilver: Harris is interesting, though. She and Warren have NOT been on the same stage together.

Maybe Harris should go after Warren! Or Bernie!

micah: Warren busting Biden is maybe good for Harris?

natesilver: I think Warren busting Biden is better for Warren than it’s bad for Biden.

Because Biden’s already had one really shitty debate and one OK one and …. well, he’s still polling at 29 percent or whatever. I’m not sure his voters care that much or see the debate the same way that media folks like us do.

micah: So yeah, then maybe it doesn’t help Harris even if Warren gets the better of Biden.

natesilver: WHAT IF HARRIS GOES AFTER WARREN ON THE NATIVE AMERICAN STUFF?!?!? She can be pretty cut-throat.

geoffrey.skelley: With some of the overlap of college-educated voter support for Warren and Harris, you could make a case that Harris should think about going after Warren to win over more of those voters. But I guess I’m having some trouble seeing it. And yeah, no one has criticized Warren for claiming Native American ancestry yet — even though that might be her most obvious non-policy weakness. That could be explosive if it happened.

micah: So the goal there would be to try and win over some of the liberal, white, college-educated support Warren has?

natesilver: I mean, she needs some of Warren’s college-educated white support, and she needs some of Biden’s black support.

She needs both of those things, and right now she has neither, really.

micah: COME OUT FIRING AT EVERYONE!!!!

sarahf: Well, as we learned in our poll of the first debate, while the bulk of Harris’s new supporters came from those who supported Biden, she did also make inroads with voters who were supporting Warren and Buttigieg — so probably a fair amount of white, college-educated voters. And I think it’s definitely plausible that this happens again.

geoffrey.skelley: If Harris is the second choice for a fair number of Warren supporters, there’s an opportunity to convert them to her, too. But yeah, to Nate’s point, Harris really does need some more of Biden’s black support.

micah: And as you note, Sarah, we did find that Biden lost support after the first debate, and much of it went to Harris.

So you do wonder if, had Harris had followed up with a better second debate performance, whether more of that support would have stuck. Which is all to say that I’m not positive Biden’s ~30 percent is all that durable.

sarahf: But OK … is the field now just those 10 candidates? Or what happens to the other 10 candidates FiveThirtyEight considers “major?” Do we expect more dropouts? Or do we think many of the candidates will try and stick it out for the October debate, as the qualifying criteria isn’t changing?

geoffrey.skelley: Given her campaign’s irritation with the debate qualification rules, I think Tulsi Gabbard might stick around to see if she can make the October debate. Tom Steyer is also only one poll away from making the October debate, so he might just keep spending mountains of cash in the early states in the hopes of getting that survey. Marianne Williamson — who knows? But it’s hard to see any other candidates having a chance of making the October debate.

sarahf: Well, you say that, Geoff. But Zach Montellaro over at Politico made an argument earlier in August that the October debate stage could grow, not shrink, and while I’m not totally sure how much it could grow, I do think more than 10 candidates will qualify. So now, I think more candidates on the cusp will stay in the race in the hopes they make the cut.

geoffrey.skelley: Sure, the candidates who weren’t that far away from making the third debate probably want to see if they can get enough polls or donors (or both) to make the fourth one. But everyone else is pretty much done and dusted.

micah: So, if making that October debate is among the more important things at this point in the campaign, do we think Steyer and Gabbard potentially have the most staying power, among the people on the outside looking in for the September debate?

sarahf: I’d think so?

micah: BOLD!

sarahf: And then maybe we get one of these magical six-person debates you all keep talking about.

micah: I like it!

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, I’d say two smaller debate nights in October is quite possible because Steyer was so close to making it, and he can spend millions in Iowa and other early states to try to attract enough notoriety to get 2 percent in one more state-level poll.

natesilver: I mean, I guess Steyer is likely to qualify.

micah: I’m surprised more candidates didn’t at least try to outsmart the system in the way Steyer did.

natesilver: In the abstract, you’d think the DNC would consider putting all candidates on the same stage if there were, say, 11 of them. But it seemed to be pretty clear this time that they were drawing a bright line at 10.

sarahf: I still can’t believe Steyer spent more than $10 million on digital and television advertising since he announced he was running in July — that’s more than any other Democrat in the race and President Trump!!

natesilver: Yeah, are we really sure he’s a winner here, Micah?

He spent a shit-ton of money, he missed the first debate, and maybe he’ll make another debate in six weeks?

micah: Well, just given his overall prospects, I’d say him being currently more likely to make the October debate than Steve Bullock or whomever is a sign he did something smart?

Or maybe I just underrated him from the jump.

natesilver: It’s a sign that that system isn’t set up super well.

micah: Yes, that too.

natesilver: Granted, any system would be exploitable.

But, like, maybe the DNC should subtract X donors for every Y amount you spend,

such that you don’t actually get credit when the cost of fundraising exceeds the amount you receive.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, there’ve been plenty of complaints that the debate qualification rules create perverse incentives, like spending more money to get the donors you need than the amount you actually pull in per donation.

sarahf: Well, I mean all the polls Steyer has qualified in have been early-state polls, right, Geoff?

So his design on dropping boatloads of money in early states wasn’t exactly misguided.

geoffrey.skelley: Right. He has three qualifying early-state polls and no national polls.

micah: Yeah, I don’t think it’s worked super well for Steyer. But it’s worked a little, at least.

But some rule, like the one Nate describes, would preclude that kind of “gamesmanship.”

sarahf: OK, so we think maybe Steyer and Gabbard stick it out until October, but what about everyone else? Anyone else want to make the bold prediction that Kirsten Gillibrand drops out before the October debate? [Editor’s note: After this chat concluded, Kirsten Gillibrand dropped out of the race, making her the sixth candidate to drop out this summer.]

Seriously, though, do we think a lot of the candidates now drop out?

micah: I’m sure a bunch will drop out.

geoffrey.skelley: I don’t think it’s completely bonkers to think that Gillibrand will drop out.

micah: Who’s most likely?

Yeah, definitely Gillibrand.

natesilver: Gillibrand is in the Jay Inslee category of “someone who has a future to lose.”

micah: Right. And political science research actually shows that having closer ties to the party — and thus having more to lose by staying in toooo long — correlates with dropping out.

natesilver: Although unlike Inslee, she doesn’t have anything to run for this year.

geoffrey.skelley: Gabbard has a congressional seat to defend, though.

But her primary is in August 2020, so she’s got plenty of time until the June candidate filing deadline.

natesilver: But there’s been talk of a primary challenge, right, Geoff?

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, Gabbard does have a legit primary challenger. So that might encourage her to drop out sooner rather than later, and go home to defend her seat.

micah: Maybe Tim Ryan drops out, too?

natesilver: I mean if we got a text alert right now saying Candidate X dropped out, the names we’d be most likely to guess are what? Gillibrand and Bennet-with-one-T?

micah: (

I thought Bennet already dropped out.)

But yeah.

geoffrey.skelley: Ryan actually might be able to wait a bit longer because, technically, he doesn’t have to drop out to seek reelection to his House seat (Ohio law permits candidates to run for president and Congress at the same time.) And Ryan had previously said he would file for reelection while continuing to run for president.

natesilver: Ryan does seem to be having fun on the campaign trail.

breaking: found my running mate pic.twitter.com/b1HsuwLUA7

— Tim Ryan (@TimRyan) August 28, 2019

And he’s getting to do a bunch of podcasts that he’s always wanted to be on and stuff.

geoffrey.skelley: Namaste, Nate.

sarahf: Seems #offbrand with the yoga shirts he’s also selling, but maybe I’m too close-minded.

micah: (Ryan is going for the Harry vote.)

sarahf: I also think Bullock could drop out soon, as I think he, too, could have a future in the party, too (if he wants it).

But maybe Bill de Blasio and Williamson are in for the long haul though, or at the very least, they don’t have the same incentives to drop out.

geoffrey.skelley: Could definitely see Williamson hanging around. Why not?

micah: Yes, let’s argue about de Blasio!

micah: Does de Blasio have a future in the party to worry about? (Drops out.)

Or does he need his campaign to end in a better spot? (Stays in.)

natesilver: de Blasio? More like de Lusional.

I’m not sure why he ever ran in the first place.

sarahf: l o l

One theory I heard tossed about was he was interested in raising his profile for a cushy job at a think tank. But I don’t really get that logic, as I’m not sure how this has helped him.

natesilver: I literally laughed at my own joke out loud. Thank god not very many people are in the office today.

geoffrey.skelley: Maybe de Blasio was annoyed that all these relative nobodies, including the mayor of a small city in Indiana, were running for president — and thought: “Why not me?”

micah: lol

But I’m genuinely not sure if he’ll just stay in forever. Or “save face.” I tend to think the latter?

sarahf: Let’s wrap — the first one-night debate is upon us. Ten candidates have made it, and we’ve talked about who that helps, who that hurts and what we expect of those who haven’t made the stage. Any last thoughts?

micah: I guess my takeaway from this chat is that if everyone thinks that, of the people to have not made the debate, Steyer and Gabbard are the most likely people to make some noise … then I feel pretty comfortable saying that the 2020 Democratic primary is down to the 10 debaters.

geoffrey.skelley: This is definitely an opportunity for Warren to separate herself from the rest of the pack — or to borrow from Nate’s tiers a bit, solidly position herself as a 1B to Biden’s 1A. Right now, there isn’t one obvious alternative to Biden.

micah: Yeah, and in terms of what happens on Sept. 12, I think Geoff is right. Can Warren solidify her a place as 1B?

And maybe also — between Harris and Buttigieg, can one of them push closer to that top three?

natesilver: She’s already a 1B. This is about whether she can become a 1A.

micah:

[misplacedangeleno]

Degrassi Next Class Season 4 Reaction Post

Hi guys. I know I’ve been absent, but I really needed to come out of “hiatus” to share my feelings about DNC Season 4. I’m coming up on 30 at the end of the month and this season moved me more than any fiction has in the past couple years. So perhaps it’s fitting to write a sort of farewell to characters who’ve been with me since my mid-twenties. I know we all have a tendency to sort of insert ourselves into fiction, but this...was something else. Cheesy? Maybe.

 Saad // Belgium storyline

===================

I mean honestly the fact that a show, especially a show for teens, is using the words: Syria, Istanbul, ISIS, refugee, at all is mind blowing to me. And unlike most television willing to broach the issue, DNC is actually humanizing its characters who have been touched by war. I feel like far too often, we’d rather just pretend everything is fine and half of an entire country’s population hasn’t been displaced. Half a million people haven’t been killed. I’ll be the first to admit I often do.

As some of you may know, I live in Istanbul and up until very recently, was working as a journalist. A majority of our energy was spent focusing on the Syrian refugee crisis and the country’s civil war. We live at the border of the war and yes, we take in more Syrian refugees than any other country in the world, but many are shoved into camps in the middle of nowhere or living in big cities, begging on the streets. There’s no infrastructure to handle them and most can’t move westward. Add to that the low-key security issues in the country (About 20 significant terror attacks in two years + an attempted coup. Hey-o!)

But even at our news station, when a terror attack hit Europe, versus somewhere in the Middle East, Africa, or even Turkey, we’d spend days dissecting it. But then, then, we’d run packages similar to Saad’s speech posing the question, Why doesn’t anyone care when it happens to brown people? Do people just expect brown people will be blown up? I agree with the sentiment, but when we, as the “brown” media perpetuate it? Internalised hate turned into greed.

We can’t normalise death, but I don’t think more Facebook flag filters are the answer, because there could never be enough to encompass the death and destruction occurring every day. The “Western” lack of interest in death in the Middle East does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of terror. I’ve seen Anti-Western sentiment grow after every terror attack in this country and I believe part of it can be attributed to the blase attitude shown by “Western” media toward “brown” death.

What does this have to do with Degrassi? I think they’ve done a pretty remarkable job tempering reality with what Canada [and the pre-Trump US] looks like on the surface. Canada is at an interesting crossroads in that it has one of the best policies for refugees in the world, but it’s far from perfect (not that anything can be). And there are Lolas and there are people like the asshat who ripped off Goldi’s hijab.  Teenagers People have never been kind so it’s no surprise that people were suspicious of Saad. It was disturbing and heartbreaking, but never surprising, to watch his story. Also not surprising: Goldi’s foray into respectability politics.

Being welcomed into a “free society” is more than being given a chance to live. Yes, newcomers are given the freedom to worship as they chose (or not). And I am in no way undervaluing that. It’s a fundamental human right. People need to be welcomed, folded into the fabric, not made to feel like they must be grateful, or always apologizing for people who don’t speak for them. Or you know, in the case of Goldi, reminding people that they’re Canadian by birth.

Goldi // Winston

===============

The Muslim voices on DNC are strong, clear, and super diverse- just like- wait for it- people in real life.

I especially love Goldi’s relationship with Winston and how she tries to reconcile her personal morals to her feelings, desires, and the world around her. I was pleased with the show for never judging her or making her decisions “wrong.” We could see how big her decision to hold Winston’s hand was and it wasn’t played for laughs. Likewise, he didn’t push her, was always respectful of the boundaries of their friendship/flirtation. Checking that the dessert was halal, that it was OK for them to be alone together, etc. Of course, he blundered: Maybe you should just take it off. That felt as realistic as the sweetness, as did the fact that he did physically fight the guy. Goldi’s guilt about the whole thing felt spot on. Her father’s reaction felt right for the moment and character DNC created.

Bisexual !!!11!!!

==============

*I’m totally down with people who don’t label themselves. This is about a general TV problem and more so, this specific character*

How is it that after 30 years on this planet...every time I hear a character on television say the words I am bisexual, I still feel like something has opened up inside and I can finally exhale?

I do have to laugh, though, having read that post going around about imagining the classroom diversity exercise through a third party’s perspective. On one hand, I completely agree. On another, the attitude is part of why Miles has struggled. He can’t- and should never- deny the amazing privilege he has in his life. But he is bisexual, dammit, and we are real, and we are discriminated against, and we deserve validation, and acknowledgment of the fact that it puts us at high risk, even if we’re rich, white, Canadian men. // rant over.

Miles’s rejection to the “diversity” spot was a great segue into a total acceptance of himself. Aside from one throwaway line to Maya in season 14, we’ve never seen any outward acknowledgement that he has any issues with his sexuality. But he’s never put a label on it, nor has he referenced acting on it, or being aware of it, before Tristan. He was instantly cool with Tristan being gay and didn’t seem to mind helping Zoë figure herself out. But sometimes when we label something, it becomes real. It feels like no take-backs.

Miles finally admitting that he did, in fact, struggle with his identity, and wasn’t just someone “not into labels,” made me want to cry. This acknowledgement rounds out his entire story arc in a way leaving him as someone who loves the person, not the gender wouldn’t. IMHO. It seems to confirm a lot of head canon. And it seems like something that had been planned, rather than just fanservice. But what do I know?

=============================

So. I’ll miss these characters.

That’s it. I think. <3

P.S.

Hijab moments: There are now just random extras in hijab (though why it took Syrian refugees for this to happen, idk). Also Goldi wrapping a loose scarf around her head to Facetime Winston.

Such a random and small thing, but there was a scene where Saad was chopping up cucumber and tomatoes and it was such an amazing touch. Small, but so, so, accurate. Kudos. Season was filled with them. Another was Rasha commenting about the horror of her ex not removing her shoes upon entering the house!

Connecting Lola’s parents fleeing Argentina to Saad fleeing Syria? Brava!

For all that Ms. Grell is up in everyone’s business and noticing that Yael is binding their breasts, you’d think she’d be checking in with Saad and the other refugees, though? I mean they’re all so worried about him being radicalized and a terrorist and yet aren’t doing mental health check-ins. Ridiculous.

Yay! A genderqueer/fluid character!

I don’t think Hunter has an obligation to stay with Yael. He likes girls. They’re not a girl. Hunter does, however, have an obligation not to be an asshole.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/politics/watch-trump-reacts-to-cohens-explosive-hill-testimony/

WATCH: Trump reacts to Cohen's explosive Hill testimony

Transcript for Trump reacts to Cohen’s explosive Hill testimony

It was a remarkable split screen that president trump says he found time to watch while there in Vietnam and what he heard his former lawyer and fixer speaking directly to him and painting a brutal picture of life inside the trump orbit calling the president a racist, a con man and a cheat and he implicated him in possible crimes. Our senior congressional correspondent Mary Bruce is right there for it all. The president is now firing back at Cohen but he also praised him for one thing, for saying there was no collusion with Russia. Reporter: Yes, Cecilia, the president says Cohen did get that right and Cohen did say that he has seen no evidence of collusion but he also added he has his suspicions. No question, this testimony was brutal. The president’s former fixer leveling one searing accusation after another and suggesting that there is even more still to come. Overnight, Michael Cohen cheered on at his hotel after his blistering takedown of the president. While half a world away in Vietnam, trump was watching too. Our Jon Karl pressing the president. He called you a leer, a con man, a racist. What’s your response to Michael Cohen? I wasn’t able to watch too much because I’ve been a little bit busy. Reporter: He called his testimony shameful and fake but says Cohen backed him up on one sticking point. He didn’t lie about one thing, he said no collusion with the Russian hoax and I say I wonder why he didn’t lie about that too. Reporter: In seven hours of testimony, Cohen who was once trusted to keep the president’s secrets pulled back the curtain. He is a racist. He is a con man. And he is a cheat. Reporter: Accusing the president of criminal activity while in office. Cohen said trump directed him to make those hush money payments to porn star stormy Daniels. The president initially denied those payments but Cohen brought documentation, a check showing trump repaid him for the money. You don’t have to take my word for it. I don’t want you to. I want you to look at the documents. Reporter: And he said trump told him to lie about the whole thing. What did the president ask or suggest you say about the payments or reimbursements. He wasn’t knowledgeable about the reimbursements and wasn’t knowledgeable of my actions. He asked you to say that. Yes, ma’am. Wikileaks, I love Wikileaks. Reporter: Cohen claim trump knew ahead of time that Wikileaks was going to release hacked DNC emails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton. And he said trump wanted him to lie to congress about a trump tower project in Moscow a deal Cohen admits was negotiated with Russia well into the campaign and Cohen says it was all typical in the world of Donald Trump. How many times did Mr. Trump ask you to threaten an individual or entity on his behalf? Quite a few times. 50 times? More. 100 times? More. 200 times? More. 500 times? Probably. Reporter: Republicans came out swinging against Cohen who’s pleaded guilty to lying to congress before. Michael Cohen, fraudster, cheat, convicted felon and in two mons a federal inmate. Liar, liar, pants on fire. No one should ever listen to you. Reporter: He noted they were not quick to defend the president’s actions. I just find it interesting, sir, that between yourself and your colleagues that not one question so far since I’m here has been asked about president trump. Reporter: And he hinted that there are more potentially even bigger bombshells still to come. Is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump that we haven’t yet discussed today? Yes, and, again, those are part of the investigation that is currently being looked at by the southern district of new York. Reporter: And Cohen will be back here on the hill again this morning. This time testifying behind closed doors with the house intelligence committee and that chairman says they are going to question him on a range of things digging deep into these various allegations and questioning him about the possibility of collusion with Russia. George. Okay, Mary Bruce, thanks very much. Let’s bring in Pierre Thomas, Dan Abrams and, Pierre, let me begin with you. Mary ended with really the biggest news of the hearing yesterday, that notion that Michael Cohen is still cooperating with the southern district of New York. They’re still hard at work. Reporter: He said since he’s been sentenced to prison he’s been in constant communication with federal prosecutors in new York. Cohen said prosecutors had questions regarding whether trump or a surrogate contacted him after the FBI raided his properties and possibly there are other questions regarding his inauguration and the trump organization. One person who may be key in answering some of these questions, his chief financial officer, Allen weisselberg who’s been a cooperating witness. Cohen raised his name repeatedly yesterday as someone who could provide those answers, George. And raised other trump organization executives as well and, Dan, in some ways this has to be the biggest concern for the trump team, reaching into the trump organization by prosecutors? Absolutely. And it’s which prosecutors are doing it as well. If this was the special counsel, some people would be say, well, you know, they’re going to be done pretty soon. They have a limited mandate. The southern district of new York isn’t going anywhere and they don’t have a limited mandate, so if they’re looking into this sort of issue with the cooperation of Michael Cohen, that is definitely something the president needs to be corps — worried about. He had some positive statements yesterday. As a legal matter. Saying he didn’t know of any collusion with the Russians. Said he maybe suspected it but didn’t know of it. On the campaign finance issue he said one of the reasons the president was concerned about the check that was being written to stormy Daniels was he didn’t want Melania to find out. Not a crime to pay someone off to protect from your wife finding out. Only a crime if it’s to influence the election. Now, he did say it was both to influence the election and to protect him from Melania but the more ambiguity the better and then finally he said that he wasn’t directed by the president to lie to congress. Doing his bidding but not directed sfwle said there was a code that was understood but, again, as a legal matter, code is much harder to prosecute than would be if he claimed that there was some sort of directive. One clear thing, this is not over in congress. Big thing the Democrats did yesterday was lay the groundwork for more investigates. That’s right. They’ll have to be careful, though, as the federal investigation moves forward in the southern district of new York, congress doesn’t want to step on that and that’s the last thing the prosecutors would want. Dan Abrams, thanks very much.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

[mathemagicalmlp]

My personal takeaways from Trump’s news conference this morning:

Nothing much has changed with what Trump has said. Build a wall, repeal and replace Obamacare, border tax, MAGA.

He seems to have more of a plan than before, but it still appears to be a vague outline than a rigid structure.

He still has a temper. This worries me greatly. If I’m worried about someone with a temper while driving a car, I’m super worried about someone with a temper driving the country. He did better at the conference than he did at the debates though.

No mocking of disabled/women/minorities today. He’s reached the bare minimum of human decency.

Trump has given his company to his kids. That doesn’t completely eliminate conflicts of interest, but it does mostly.

Full report under the read more.

Buzzfeed published uncorroborated/unconfirmed reports. Guys. This is one of the things we’re trying to fight against as fake news. Confirm your reports through your own journalism and don’t just release gossip.

Trump has saved and/or created about 4,000 jobs since becoming president elect with deals from Carrier, Ford, and Chrysler-Fiat. But that’s not enough since the average job rate increase is about 100,000 per month. What Trump is doing at the moment is not going to substantially help the economy in the long term. Whether or not his policies will is another story, and one I’ll be watching closely.

Drugs (legal ones) appear to be on Trump’s hit list after the auto industry. I’m currently neutral on this because I know nothing about it.

I had no idea about the F-35. But I’m learning now. Trump says he can get the cost down with competition. I don’t see how that’s possible.

TREMENDOUS THINGS! THEY’RE GOING TO DO TREMENDOUS THINGS! Dude, just use a teleprompter. And tell us specifically what they’re going to do.

Side note: “many people have said” does not make it true

“I will be the greatest jobs producer God has ever created.” A little (or a lot) arrogant but it sounds good. How?

His site says by increasing the GDP and a “pro-growth tax plan”. How would he increase GDP? And I need to do research on whether low tax plans on the wealthy actually do increase investment in jobs. I have been conformed into thinking that the Government is a better producer of jobs than the 1% but I have no basis for this besides being a Democrat and we know how lame of an excuse that is.

“We’re going to need a little bit of luck.” What? I? What?

Why are you still talking about the polls? The polls aren’t relevant anymore.

Unless he wants to portray himself as an underdog. But underdogs typically perform a lot of work to get them to where they are, and Trump only marketed himself well.

The VA is a problem? I mean, I have an uncle who works there and I haven’t heard him complain about how it’s bad. Or rather I heard that he loves the ACA. Maybe I’ll talk to him more about it.

Trump admits the hacking was done by Russia. He has surpassed the expectations given to a 4 year old. Thank God.

China apparently also hacked us about a year ago. So yeah I kinda agree that we need to increase our cyber security.

On the note of hacking, according to Comey, the FBI director, the current RNC was “not successfully hacked” (a point Trump reiterated). However, older RNC information (such as email accounts that were no longer in use) was successfully hacked but not released, and that this non-release is why Russia appears to have favored Trump. If so, I’m confused as to why Russia didn’t hack and/or release old DNC information as well. Or at least why we haven’t heard about it if they did.

More talking about how Democrats and Hillary are bad. I’m getting sick and tired of it.

Though I did learn some new information: Hillary Clinton received one of the Democratic Primary debate questions a day in advance, leaked by CNN’s Brazile. Shit.

STOP WITH THE HYPERBOLE! (Biggest Story in the History of Stories is a HYPERBOLE DONALD STOP USING THEM) (Yes the Hillary scandal is worse but this is more annoying.)

(In response to if Russia has blackmail on Trump) Do you honestly think anything Russia could release is worse than the Hollywood Access tape? No.

“I am very careful [of cameras watching in Russia]” Try saying that again, but remembering the Hollywood Access tape, the time you mocked a disabled reporter, the time you called Mexican illegal immigrants rapists, the time you promised to get a special prosecutor to look at Hillary’s case, etc. (And trust me there’s plenty more examples to come)

Trump claims that he has no current loans or dealings in Russia. He has tried previously to expand into Russia and also held the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Russia. However, it does appear that he has no CURRENT ties to Russia in his financial dealings. It’s impossible to know for sure though since he hasn’t released his tax returns.

Note: Trump claimed to have talked with Putin during his time in Russia following the Miss Universe pageant, but denied those claims as he was running for president. Therefore it is impossible to know (unless Putin wants to come forward).

Trump admitted he didn’t know about the president not needing to give up personal assets until 3 months ago.

I think he’s right, in that the people don’t give a shit about his tax returns.

Trump (along with Ivanka apparently) signed over the business to his sons and another executive. I’m good with this. As long as he does it in practice and not just in name.

This woman announcing this is speaking more clearly than Trump. It’s more boring, sure, but it’s better.

This sounds really good. But I’ll let the news organizations slog through the details and read the summaries to confirm this.

(”Selling [his assets]...would exacerbate conflicts of interest) No. No it wouldn’t.

He can decline royalty fees.

It may look like “pay to play” but that isn’t different than making the situation better for his family anyways. It’s just with different people.

Losing value is not the same as conflicting interests.

I’m sorry, but you’re offering very good alternative ideas and not doing anything to dissuade me that they’re possible.

It’s not the best way to resolve conflicts of interest. But it is acceptable.

...Are diplomats going to stay at Trump hotels? I...I feel like this is a conflict of interest, regardless of whether or not Trump is getting paid. (All payments will be donated to the Treasury.)

The Secretary of State can’t just magically fix trade deficits you know.

“We don’t make good deals anymore.” THE UNITED STATES DOESN’T MAKE DEALS WITH COUNTRIES! THAT’S THE CORPORATIONS THAT DO THAT!

The big one. Obamacare.

“[Republicans] could sit back and watch and criticize as Obamacare gets worse.” YOU’VE ALREADY DONE THAT YOU IDIOT!

Trump claims that a replacement plan will be submitted as soon as the Health and Human Services cabinet member (Tom Price) is approved. I hope so, but I’m taking it with a LARGE grain of salt.

His confirmation hearing is set for Jan 18. Two days before Trump is sworn in. Mull on that.

Again, more complaining about Obamacare rather than talking about what we can do to fix it. I can’t wait to see the plan they put up.

They’re talking about the wall. Nothing we haven’t heard before.

“Mexico has been so nice.” BWAHAHAHAHA

“Nobody’s ever had crowds like I’ve had.” BWAHAHAHAHA DOES THE NAME BERNIE SANDERS RING A BELL? 

Trump was consistently interrupted by a CNN reporter. Trump finally got them to be quiet by calling CNN “fake news.”

CNN may be biased like Fox, but it’s certainly not fake.

Fake news is “something we’re going to have to live with.” Bullshit. Make a law punishing false news stories published by companies claiming to be true news outlets (not satire/parody sites like the Onion).

I can’t find a corroborating source for “the US is the worst of 17 countries at hacking defense.” I found one for healthcare, but not hacking defense.

I’ll say that I’m more impressed than I thought I would be. But that bar was set pretty low to begin with. We’ll see how well he holds up when he actually sets foot in office.

[thisdaynews]

Dems rocket into 2020 with huge donor windfall

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/dems-rocket-into-2020-with-huge-donor-windfall/

Dems rocket into 2020 with huge donor windfall

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ massive $34.5 million fundraising total for the fourth quarter of the year put him within range of President Donald Trump. | Charlie Neibergall/AP Photo

Democrats are riding a massive surge of presidential campaign cash into 2020, boosting the party’s hopes of taking back the White House.

Their leading candidates for president faced criticism last year from party veterans alarmed by tepid early fundraising totals. But they finished up 2019 raking in cash from fired-up donors: The current Democratic presidential contenders and the Democratic National Committee combined raised over $450 million in the last year — more than President Donald Trump’s reelection machine brought in during that time.

Democrats are still encouraged by the money pouring in from both the progressive and moderate wings of the party, as well as from Democrats writing big checks and from small-dollar donors alike. Though the party is about to spend much of the money raised on a tough primary while Trump builds up resources to take on the eventual nominee, the millions of contributions to Democrats in $10 or $20 increments signal massive enthusiasm from the party grassroots heading into the election year.

“I was very nervous [in the spring] that these operations were not sophisticated enough to go toe to toe with Trump,” said Rufus Gifford, finance director for Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign. But Sen. Bernie Sanders’ massive $34.5 million fundraising total for the fourth quarter for the year put him within range of Trump, who brought in $46 million for his campaign — even while Sanders faces a crowded field of primary contenders competing for money in the days ahead of the Iowa caucuses.

“The idea that you’re within striking distance of an incumbent president — not considering the party fundraising — I think that’s pretty solid,” Gifford said. “You’ve got to feel encouraged as a Democrat. There’s obviously a lot of energy out there.”

They are up against a highly organized machine, including the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, which has been up and running for more than a year to reelect Trump from its headquarters in Rosslyn, Va. Some Democrats have feared their nominee will never be able to catch up to Trump’s massive head start.

Several leading candidates announced their total fundraising for October through the end of December this week: In addition to Sanders, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised $24.7 million, former Vice President Joe Biden brought in $22.7 million and Andrew Yang raised $16.5 million. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has not announced her fourth-quarter fundraising total, but she told supporters in a December email she had raised more than $17 million at that point, less money than during the previous three-month stretch.

Altogether, the 11 Democratic candidates who are not self-funding their campaigns and the DNC combined to raise at least $463 million in 2019 (including at least $17 million raised last quarter by Warren.) That’s more than Trump and his allied committees, including the RNC, which brought in at least $402 million in 2019, though not all committees have reported their totals.

The candidates are using the cash to build armies of field staff and air television ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and a slew of other states that will soon begin voting. In a memo sent to donors on Thursday, Biden campaign manager Greg Schultz said the campaign had spent $5.2 million on “our tech and digital infrastructure” alone since its April launch, which the campaign has used to work on its small-dollar fundraising and build up its reach on social media.

But their fundraising hauls are also an indicator of who is building momentum with Democratic voters. The small-dollar donations to Democratic House candidates in 2018 were an early sign of the wave that flipped the chamber last November. Now, Democrats hope the increasingly large sums raised by the candidates are a sign they can win the White House again.

The Democrats’ fundraising “says, to me, that there is out there a very strong appetite to support the Democratic nominee,” said Charles Adams, a Buttigieg donor and former U.S ambassador to Finland. “The resources will be available to that nominee to compete on even terms or better with Trump in the general election.”

Adams predicted Buttigieg’s powerhouse fundraising will not be hurt in the coming weeks by his feud with Warren, who attacked him repeatedly in December for holding a fundraiser with rich donors in an elaborate wine cave.

“Everyone knows that fundraising, for better or for worse, is an indispensable part of the political process in the U.S. I wish it were otherwise,” Adams said. “There’s no reason people who enjoy drinking wine shouldn’t be able to contribute.”

Sanders’ haul in the fourth quarter, which exceeded Biden and Buttigieg’s totals by about $10 million, elevated him even within the small group of other successful fundraisers in the 2020 field. Barring a late surprise, Sanders raised more money from donors than any other Democratic presidential candidate in 2019 — with an average donation of $18, illustrating the growing dominance of online contributors in political fundraising.

Sanders’ team, which has struggled to persuade voters that he is as likely to defeat Trump as Biden, is using his fourth-quarter numbers and his grassroots fundraising strategy to argue for Sanders’ electability. In an email to supporters this week, Sanders estimated that he would raise $1 billion from small-dollar donors in a race against Trump.

Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager, said there is no magic formula to his fundraising — “I would say it’s the lack of gimmickry” — and that his most successful days are typically debates, when voters simply hear his message unfiltered. He pointed to Sanders’ campaign kickoff email, which was a 1,500-word letter written by the Vermont senator that did not directly ask for money, as an example of the team’s straightforward approach.

“Any [other] digital fundraiser would have probably gone in and said, ‘You’re crazy, you can’t do it this way. That’s the wrong way to go about it. This email is too long. You have to put the dollar figure right here,’” Shakir said. “But that whole email series was very successful.”

A Sanders aide said the final days of fundraising quarters are also among their most successful: New Year’s Eve was the second-best fundraising day of 2019 for Sanders — better than the day after the 2016 Iowa caucuses — and $1 million from 60,000 donations came in during the final hours of that night.

Sanders has benefited from an experienced digital fundraising team, which includes three top staffers who were part of a 2016 campaign that set financial records. Tim Tagaris, a senior adviser to Sanders, is seen in political circles as trailblazer of small-dollar online giving.

Still, some Democrats wonder if the divide between moderates and progressives in the party will have an impact on fundraising — in other words, whether Buttigieg’s high-dollar donors would contribute to, say, Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders in the general election, or whether Sanders’ fans would continue to give to anyone else if he is not the nominee.

“That’s the million-dollar question,” said a veteran operative of Democratic presidential campaigns. “Should Bernie not be the nominee, will people stick by in terms of making those million-dollar contributions or knocking on doors? Both are important and both are needed to beat Trump.”

Democrats may be worrying too much, however: Sanders has repeatedly said he would support whoever the nominee is, and recent Economist/YouGov polls show that 87 percent of his supporters said they will vote for the Democrat next fall.

Many on the left see Sanders’ and Warren’s fundraising totals as proving that their movement is exactly what is needed to take on Trump’s money machine: “This is showing that grassroots power is a force in politics and folks underestimate it at their own peril,” said progressive consultant Rebecca Katz.

Read More

[hallhub6-blog]

CYCLE OF RAGE: NIMBY Lawyer Arthur Schwartz Sees Himself as Jane Jacobs Fighting Robert Moses

Arthur Schwartz will not like reading these words, but he is a NIMBY lawyer.

As the attorney for a coalition of block associations that is fighting the bike lanes on 12th and 13th streets, as well as the city’s plan to turn 14th Street into a dedicated “busway,” he has been called much worse by supporters of street safety and transit improvements. But by the neutral definition of a NIMBY — a neighborhood resident who hears about a city proposal and says, “Not in my back yard!” — Schwartz is definitely a lawyer for NIMBYs.

But he would prefer it if you’d call him the heir to Jane Jacobs.

I spent 45 minutes on the phone with Schwartz on Friday afternoon after vandals attacked the bike lanes that his group wants removed. He condemned the violence, but then spent the next 44 minutes arguing that the pro-transit community has him and his clients all wrong: They are merely fighting for the “community” to have a say over changes to the neighborhood.

And they believe, he says, that closing 14th Street to cars will send those cars onto local side-streets. He might be right — but then only mentioned congestion pricing as a tangential issue. He also made it clear that he opposes select bus service on 14th Street. So, no, he’s no Jane Jacobs in that respect.

He also was very eager to defend his credentials as a “progressive” after many opponents pointed out that it was, how you say, odd, that Schwartz, the political director for the New York Progressive Action Network, was fighting transit and other green transportation efforts on behalf of rich Greenwich Village residents and their supposed right to free on-street car storage. (Schwartz, of course, said parking is not his issue — he spends $600 a month to garage his car).

“Before you attack me as a lawyer for NIMBYs, … check out what I have done for the last 40 years,” he told me in a pre-emptive email after our chat. “I have been the elected Democratic District Leader for the Village since 1995, re-elected 11 times, got elected as an Obama-pledged DNC delegate in 2008, a Bernie delegate in 2016, represented Bernie in 2016, Cynthia Nixon in 2018, Jumaane Williams in 2019, and have built a public interest legal foundation in my spare time (I need paying clients, mostly unions, to pay my bills).”

I pointed out that it’s not an attack to call Schwartz the lawyer for a “not in my backyard” group. “Your group is literally opposing something because of the impact it would have … in your backyard,” I said. “An ‘attack’ would be to say you are corrupt or doing something immoral, which we have not said.”

“But even NIMBY is unfair,” Schwartz argued. “When people in Soho rallied (unsuccessfully) against Trump Tower Soho, was that NIMBY? When I represented many of the same groups to keep a Costco from opening on 14th Street (we got a YMCA instead) was that NIMBY? When people living near NYU sued to stop NYU from building three new 40-story buildings was that NIMBY? … NIMBY is a negative term, which I reserve for things like wealthy people opposing affordable housing in their neighborhood.” (To reiterate, NIMBY is not automatically a pejorative. But when people say they love bike lanes, but only in other people’s neighborhood, the shoe fits. And in this particular case, it’s a tasseled Gucci loafer.)

He claims instead that he and his group are merely fighting for “genuine community involvement in planning,” but in our chat, he said he knows nothing about other neighborhoods or their residents, and does not acknowledge that cyclists and transit riders should also get “genuine community involvement.” He ignored many of the basics that truly define progressive politics: concern for the common man, the ability to look beyond one’s own self-interest to the greater good, or even the desire to bike a mile in someone else’s delivery poncho.

The best part of our chat was his conclusion that the mayor would listen to the “very powerful Transportation Alternatives” and retain the L-train streetscape changes as a favor to the all-powerful bike lobby — a conclusion that is very unlikely, given the mayor’s fealty to the automobile.

It was a bombshell interview, presented here unedited, though with some explanatory notes:

Streetsblog: First of all, what did you think of the vandalism?

Arthur Schwartz: I condemn it. If somebody put glass in the street then it’s horrible. I don’t believe in vigilante action.

Streetsblog: But members of the 14th Street community put up signs suggesting that bike lanes don’t belong on “their” streets.

This graffiti appeared on 13th Street near Avenue A on Thursday. It is a reference to parking spaces that were removed to provide more safety for cyclists.

Arthur Schwartz: My perspective is this: I support bike lanes. When I was a community board member — which I was for 24 years — I would take pride in being the foremost proponent of the bike lane on route 9A [the West Side Greenway]. It was the first and it is still the best as far as I’m concerned. It has the most usage and it’s the safest, until some terrorist comes driving down with a car. And I supported the north-south bike lane on Hudson Street in the early 2000s. I was a big supporter of bike lanes. I am not against bike lanes. I want to be clear: I am not anti-bike lane. I have a Yuba chained in my house that is well-used, and I have two Citi Bike keys. … When my kids were younger, they used to ride on the back to school. [He described a specially made bike that he custom-designed for his kids.] People used to take pictures of my kids on the back reading books or eating sandwiches. So, I’m a big supporter of bikes.

Streetsblog: OK, you’re a lawyer so let’s stipulate two things: You’re a better father than I am and you’re a supporter of getting around by bike. Fine. But if you’re such a supporter, what bothers you about bike lanes on 12th and 13th streets and a busway on 14th Street?

Arthur Schwartz: I happen to believe that communities that are affected by any change should have a meaningful impact into decisions about that change. … Affected communities should have a real say, not just bullshit, but a real say on changes in their community. I served on CB2 for 24 years. … I was the major insister that park planning … genuinely involve input of and responsiveness to the community. I have four kids. That department and the Hudson River Park Trust responded to the community and changed a lot of stuff. They’d come to us with a plan … and we would organize community input and they’d modify and they would try to make people happy. Even if people would come from other communities to use a park, to me, people who live there should have the most say. Just because someone says it’s a great idea…Robert Moses said that. Robert Moses wanted to build an expressway right down Fifth Avenue and the community said, “This is our community.” Jane Jacobs said local people should be involved in planning. She beat them. So you say, “This is not your street. Fifth Avenue belongs to everybody.” Yes and no. People that live in the affected community … have to me should have a major recognized input to what goes on. … [But DOT] all they did was announce it. They said, “This is what we’re going to do.” They took questions. There was no input.

Streetsblog: There was plenty of input from other members of the community that you are not mentioning: the non-car owners, the bus commuters, the cyclists…

This sign suggested that West Village residents think the roads belong to them. Photo: Jonathan Warner

Arthur Schwartz: This doesn’t have to all do with cars. Most of the cars that drive down my block are not from my block. There are other people driving across town. It’s not the car issue. I put my car in a garage. It’s not the car issue. It’s the traffic issue. Traffic causes air pollution, noise, vibration, makes it unsafe for your kids to cross the street. That’s my concern, not where I park my car. It really isn’t. Is it annoying? Yeah. But I never expect parking is easy. My kids go to Chelsea Piers until 9 p.m. It’s either a cab or the car.

Streetsblog: So what is the traffic issue, as you see it?

Arthur Schwartz: You close 14th Street and all those cars are going to go down side streets. Trucks vans cars are going to go across my street, which already has enough traffic. … That’s the traffic. So most of the people involved in the 14th St. Coalition, and it’s every single block association in Chelsea and the Village, they’re not car owners. … It’s the traffic they’re concerned about. … People thought, planning wise, the people at DOT who I think have not done a very good job of moving traffic in the city … bus traffic in Manhattan in 2017 moved at 4.2 mph. The average person walks at 3.3 mph. That’s slow for buses.

Streetsblog: Sounds like you are making an argument in favor of turning 14th Street into a busway so buses could move faster.

Arthur Schwartz: I challenge that whole analysis, which was all based on guesstimates. Those of us who live over here don’t think the busway is going to make it move any faster and it will throw traffic onto our streets. And, this is the second part: the way that the DOT has set up the bike lane, the buffer area is totally being used for parking. I could send you photos.

Streetsblog: I could send you photos! But the traffic you’re worried about is even more likely to happen if there’s no bike lane because now trucks that illegally park only obstruct the bike lane instead of the car lane.

Arthur Schwartz: Right, and without the added traffic, it’s not a big deal [to the drivers]. But the minute you shut down 14th Street, it’s a big deal. To me, it’s not the bike lane.

Streetsblog: You say there was no community input, but the DOT wanted to put a two-way bike lane on 13th Street, but the community said no.

Arthur Schwartz: (Sigh) They did little tweaks. And people can do drop-offs of 14th Street. If they did a two-way on 13th St, they would have had to shut it to cars. There wouldn’t have been room for cars.

Streetsblog: Sounds like a good start! OK, so what do you actually oppose now?

Arthur Schwartz: For me, personally? I am not against the bike lanes. I am against the configuration. There are better ways to a) protect the bike riders b) avoid the trucks and c) allow for traffic flow. I think there are better designs that are better that would make it better. I don’t think it’s a safe bike lane. Just because you have a striped area? People zoom around and there are angry drivers who pull into the bike lane.

Streetsblog: Those angry drivers are the ones who frighten all of us, including cyclists and, I’d imagine, those elderly people you mentioned to Gothamist, though you said they were more afraid of the cyclists. So now I’m confused again: Who’s more dangerous to the elderly: speeding drivers or cyclists?

Arthur Schwartz: I don’t think that’s a safe bike lane. My position is in the letter I sent to the lawyers of DOT. Genuine negotiation with the community.

Streetsblog: Sure, but in this heightened climate, where people are dropping glass in bike lanes, or saying, “Give us back our parking,” this is playing out as a bunch of rich Village residents trying to hold onto their parking at the expense of safe cycling and faster transit.

Arthur Schwartz: No one is saying about parking. [Fact check: Schwartz’s letter to the DOT, embedded below, does bemoan the loss of parking.] Well, parking is an issue for people who have cars that live there. [Loss of parking] is supposed to be in all SEQR assessments, it has to be in there.

Streetsblog: You do know that the existence of parking encourages people to own cars and then drive, thereby causing the very congestion you detest.

Arthur Schwartz: I don’t agree with that.

Streetsblog: You don’t agree that free curbside parking encourages people to drive? It’s not a debatable point. There are countless studies on this. Sir, please…

Arthur Schwartz: (long pause) To me the major problem with traffic in New York City is Uber and Lyft, and not local residents. It’s also out-of-city residents driving in. That’s why I support congestion pricing. If I could get rid of Uber, I would get rid of Uber. If you had fewer vehicles entering Manhattan below 96th Street and fewer for-hire vehicles, we would not have the same problem. People who park on 12th Street never use their cars to go anywhere. … I have lived in the Village for 41 years, so I don’t know what it’s like anywhere else. Their statement doesn’t say a word about parking. It has four points. It doesn’t say a word about parking.

Streetsblog: The sign literally said, “West Village Parking Only.”

Arthur Schwartz: So people put up signs. But the most you could conclude is that one sign is the view of one person.

Streetsblog: You certainly know that the issue of parking comes up all the time at these meetings. Many people who own cars believe that their ability to park freely is more important than a clear right of way for transit users or cyclists.

Arthur Schwartz: Some people say that. I have not advocated that position and I don’t like being labeled that way on your blog. Frankly, my business partner bikes to work from Brooklyn every day and is a big fan of yours. I don’t hang out with car-parking advocates.

Streetsblog: You do represent some of them.

Arthur Schwartz: I represent a coalition of block associations. And they really want to be negotiated with. That’s the main thing they want. Traffic on the side streets is the key issue. [Point of fact: Block associations tend to be dominated by landowners, and do not always reflect the full diversity of a neighborhood.]

Streetsblog: All of this could be moot because the mayor might agree with you that all the L-train mitigations no longer are needed because the L train won’t be shut down.

Arthur Schwartz: I don’t think he’s going to do that. You guys wield a lot of political power.

Streetsblog: Streetsblog?

Arthur Schwartz: Maybe not Streetsblog, but TransAlt. The mayor is a big fan, even though he drives everywhere.

Streetsblog: You really think he’s going to bend to bicyclists? Care to make it interesting? Are you a betting man?

Arthur Schwartz: No, I’m not a betting man.

Letter from Arthur Z. Schwa… by on Scribd

Source: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/01/14/cycle-of-rage-nimby-lawyer-arthur-schwartz-sees-himself-as-jane-jacobs-fighting-robert-moses/

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/president-vladimir-putin/

Russian President Vladimir Putin interview to FOX News

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace in an interview recorded in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58019

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace: President Putin, thank you for speaking with us.

I am going to get to some specifics about the summit in a moment, but let’s begin with the big picture. President Trump said in his news conference that our relationship has never been worse, but that changed a few hours ago. How has the relationship, big picture, between the US and Russia changed today?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You know, we should be grateful primarily to our aides, our staff who have been interacting with each other not only recently to prepare this meeting, but for months before that.

I am referring to the work of our agencies in the spheres of special concern for the United States and Russia, primarily counterterrorism.

President Trump and I pointed out today that terrorism is a bigger threat than it may seem at first glance. If the worse comes to the worst, God forbid, and terrorists lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction, the consequences will be terrible.

Our military and special services are building relations in this sphere of crucial importance for our countries. A case in point is our cooperation in Syria, even though we do not fully agree on the global goal and ways to achieve it.

However, we maintain cooperation between our militaries and special services. Their work concerns the fight against terrorism in the broad meaning of the word.

Then, the New START treaty will expire in 2021. What should we do about this? I assured President Trump that Russia is ready to extend this treaty, but we definitely need to discuss details.

We have questions we need to ask our American partners. We believe that the United States does not fully comply with this treaty, but this should be discussed at the expert level. We also talked about Iran’s nuclear programme.

We talked about what we can do to improve the situation in North Korea. I have said this before, but I will repeat that I believe President Trump has done a great deal to promote the settlement of this conflict.

However, we will need international guarantees to attain complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Russia is ready to contribute towards this to the extent that will be required.

Therefore, it can be said that we can see eye to eye on these and several other issues of concern to us. This allows us to say that much has changed for the better during our meeting today.

Chris Wallace: But do you see the summit as a turning point, an end of the effort by the West in recent years to isolate Russia?

Vladimir Putin: And you can see that these efforts did not work out, and they could not have worked out, considering Russia’s size and importance in the world, including in the sphere of global security, as well as in the economy if we consider at least the energy component of the global economy.

I believe that our understanding of the things that unite us and the things we should work on together is prompting us to admit that we must stop fighting each other and should instead join forces to deal with common problems in the fight against shared concerns, so as to overcome these concerns. Therefore, I believe that this is the beginning. It is a start. I believe we have given a good start to this today.

Chris Wallace: Mr President, one of the issues that is standing in the way of more progress, as you know, are the allegations of Russian interference in the US election. You have repeatedly said, and you said again today, that this was not the action of the Russian state, that if there was anything, it was patriotic Russian individuals. I have here the indictment that was presented on Friday from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller that says that twelve members of Russian military intelligence, the GRU, and they talk specifically about units 26165 and 74455, they say – you smile, let me finish – they say that these units were specifically involved in hacking into Democratic Party computers, stealing information, and spreading it to the world to try to disrupt the American election. May I give this to you to look at, sir?

Vladimir Putin: Let me start my answer to your question from a different angle. Look, everyone is talking about Russia’s alleged interference in your election campaign. I said this in 2016, but I would like to repeat this today, and I would like the American audience to hear my reply.

First, Russia as a state has never interfered in the internal affairs of the United States, let alone elections.

Chris Wallace: But sir, this is the indictment, I have twelve names here. It talks about specific units of the GRU, Russian military intelligence. Is the GRU not part of the Russian state?

Vladimir Putin: I will answer your question, have patience and you will hear a comprehensive answer. As for interference in the internal affairs of the United States. Do you really think that it was possible to influence US elections from Russia, to influence the choice of millions of Americans? This is ridiculous.

Chris Wallace: I am not asking whether they influenced, I am asking whether they tried.

Vladimir Putin: I will answer you now, if you bear with me, you will hear my answer. This was the first thing.

Second, I said this in 2016, and I want to repeat it again now. What was the problem? It concerned the hacking of a Democratic candidate’s email. Did this attack involve manipulation with facts? This is very important. I want the Americans to hear this. Did anyone manipulate with the facts or plant fake information? No.

The hackers involved – don’t worry, I will get back to your question – read that candidate’s emails and learned about manipulations within the Democratic Party in favour of one of the candidates. That is all.

As far as I remember, the leaders of the party’s executive bodies resigned. It means that they admitted this fact. I believe this is the crucial thing. You must stop manipulating public opinion and apologise to the voters for what was done, rather than keep looking for those who allegedly did this.

Now back to these issues. I said at the news conference, and I can repeat this now. Mr Mueller…

Chris Wallace: You are indicating that they stole real money, not counterfeit money. So are you saying that this ok, the fact that they took from the DNC, from John Podesta, it was their real e-mail, so it is ok to hack, and spread this information out and interfere with the election?

Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. There is nothing false in the information at my disposal. Everything it says is true, and the leadership of the Democratic Party has admitted it. This is the first thing.

Second, if you do not like my answer, please say so, and I will say no more. But if you want the American people to know my opinion, then have patience.

As for the specific accusations, Mr Mueller has brought charges against a Russian company, a small business working primarily in the catering industry. I have spoken about this before.

This company has hired American attorneys to protect its name in an American court. This court has not yet found any trace of interference by this company.

Do you know about this or not? Let the millions of Americans know about this as well. Now for the [Russian] citizens mentioned here. We have a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, a valid treaty that was signed in 1999. It has been applied quite effectively. I cited an example of its effective application. Why cannot Mr Mueller and his colleagues…

Chris Wallace: I’m not trying to interrupt or be disrespectful.

Vladimir Putin: You are doing this.

Why cannot Mr Mueller send an official request to us within the framework of this treaty? Under this treaty, Russian investigators could question all the individuals that our American colleagues suspect of something. I have said this before. Why has none of this been done to this day? This is surprising. Nobody has sent an official request to us…

Chris Wallace: But the indictment just came. Let me just say. I don’t want to interrupt but I want to ask one question and move on to other subjects. Why do you think Robert Mueller issued this indictment three days before you and President Trump met here at the summit?

Vladimir Putin: This does not concern me. These are your internal political games. Do not hold Russia-US relations hostage to your political infighting.

By the way, it is obvious to me that this case has been used for internal political fighting, and this is nothing to be proud of for US democracy. Using law enforcement agencies for political infighting is inadmissible.

I have said what I think regarding this fact. Please, send us an official request…

Chris Wallace: Do you think that Mr Mueller is trying to sabotage the relationship?

Vladimir Putin: I do not want to assess his work. It is not for me to do this. Let the Congress which appointed him do this. By the way, the court is not sure that Mr Mueller has been appointed as special counsel in full compliance with American legislation.

According to the court, he was appointed to his current position in violation of the law. But it is no concern of mine. You deal with it yourself. As for suspicions and charges, a procedure is stipulated in the above treaty which you can use to send requests.

Chris Wallace: May I move on, sir?

Vladimir Putin: Of course.

Chris Wallace: I heard the news conference today. My opinion was a bit curious because President Trump spent more time criticising the Democrats and asking about the Democratic server that he did in criticising Russia and asking about the GRU. There are many theories in the United States about why President Trump is so reluctant to criticise you, and I’d like to ask you about a couple of them. One is that you have something on him, kompromat. The other is that as a skilled politician and a former KGB officer you know how to play him, you use phrases like “fake news” and “deep state.” And my question is: do you find President Trump easy to deal with?

Vladimir Putin: First, about why we talked as cultured people should. Why does this come as a surprise? Did we need to meet, go to Helsinki, Mr Trump across the ocean and I from Moscow to abuse and throw mud at each other? This is not how things are done in the global diplomatic practice.

There is no need to meet if you only want to quarrel and worsen relations. We met to find ways to improve our relations, not to destroy them completely. This is the first part of my answer.

The second part concerns the compromising materials you asked about. No, we have no compromising materials and cannot have any. I do not want President Trump to take offence, and I do not want to sound impolite, but we had no interest in him until he announced his decision to run for president.

He is a wealthy man, but there are many wealthy people in the United States. He was in the construction business and organised beauty pageants. Nobody ever thought he would be elected president. He never indicated that he had any political ambitions. So the idea of compromising materials is nonsense.

As you know, I said at the news conference that 550 American business leaders visited St Petersburg [International Economic Forum], and every one of them is more important than Mr Trump used to be. Do you think that we put pressure on each of them, that our secret services shadow them, spy on them and tap their conversations?

First, we do not do this, unlike you. Do not judge others by yourself. Second, we do not have the funds, resources or personnel to spy on everyone. This is just not in our plans. It is simply impossible, and we certainly did nothing of this kind with regard to Mr Trump.

Chris Wallace: I’d like to ask you a couple of specific questions about NATO. If NATO were to move to add either Ukraine or Georgia to the Alliance, how will you respond?

Vladimir Putin: The situation in NATO is as follows. I know about the decision-making mechanism used in the bloc. Of course, its decisions are taken by consensus, but before taking them, individual NATO members can be contacted on a bilateral basis, as it was done with regard to Poland and Romania, which now host elements of the US strategic missile defence system.

This poses a direct threat to our national security. Therefore, the advancement of NATO infrastructure towards our borders poses a threat, and our reaction to it will be extremely negative.

Chris Wallace: Secondly, there are two major NATO exercises later this year: Anaconda and Trident Juncture. Did you and President Trump discuss those and did he give any indication as he did with Chairman Kim of North Korea when he agreed to stop participating in war games. Did he give any indication that the US might not participate in these two NATO operations?

Vladimir Putin: No, we did not discuss this, although it is an issue of concern for us. The NATO infrastructure is expanding, and the number of NATO servicemen in the regions where there should not be any has increased by 10,000 people.

Under the Founding Act on relations between Russia and NATO, there must be no servicemen there. It is certainly a destabilising factor. We must take it into account in our relations. But President Trump and I did not talk about this today.

Chris Wallace: I want to ask you about Russia’s involvement in Syria. According to independent monitors, since the civil war began in 2011, more than a half a million people have been killed, and Russia has bombed civilians in Aleppo and Ghouta. No qualm about killing innocents?

Vladimir Putin: A war is in progress and this is the most horrible thing that can happen to humankind. Of course, victims are inevitable. And people always ask, who is to blame? As I see it, it is the terrorist groups, which have destabilised the country, that are to blame. I mean ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the like. They are the true culprits.

This is exactly what the US military reply, when they deliver strikes at civilian facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq or some other country. On the whole, although this may seem debatable to someone, but on the whole this is true.

As far as Syria is concerned, US aircraft delivered very serious strikes at the city of Raqqa. Earlier today, President [Trump] and I talked about the need to undertake efforts for humanitarian operations. I think we managed to make some headway in this direction. I am looking forward to the implementation of the plans we discussed today.

Chris Wallace: But the UN commission that is investigating Syria says and I quote their words: there was deliberate targeting of civilians by Russian pilots flying Su-24 and 34 military aircraft.

Vladimir Putin: Everything is to be verified and assessed.

But I would like you to return to what I have just said about Raqqa. The aircraft that were attacking this city were piloted by American…

Chris Wallace: We cannot talk about Aleppo and Ghouta?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we can talk about Aleppo and Ghouta, but then let us talk about Raqqa too. Don’t snatch some things out of their context and forget about other things. All right?

Chris Wallace: I do not think that there has been bloodshed in Raqqa. That there were hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in Aleppo and in Ghouta, and in the entire civil war – half a million people. By some estimates, 20,000 children have been killed by the Assad regime and his supporters in Moscow. Are they terrorists?

Vladimir Putin: You are completely wrong; I wish you were familiar with the real situation in Syria. A lot of civilians died in Raqqa. Raqqa has been wiped off the face of the earth. Now it is a solid mass of ruins resembling Stalingrad during World War II, and, of course, there is nothing good in all this.

To reiterate: it is the people guided by their terrorist beliefs and using civilians as hostages who are to blame.

Chris Wallace: At the G7 Summit, President Trump reportedly told the other leaders that Crimea might as well be Russian because everybody there speaks Russian. Did he give you any indication that at some point, not today, but at some point he might recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea, or lift sanctions, or move to bring Russia back into the G7, now the G8, all of which happened as a result of the annexation of Crimea?

Vladimir Putin: Let me make a correction: when Crimea joined Russia it was not an annexation, since the only form of democratic expression is the expression of the will of the people living within a specific territory.

People in Crimea came to the referendum and voted for independence and joining the Russian Federation. If this is an annexation, what is democracy? This is my first point.

My second point is that we are aware of President Trump’s position that Crimea is part of the Ukrainian state, as he has repeated today, while I articulated our position which is close to what I have just told you. Having said that, I think we should leave our discussion of Crimea at that.

Chris Wallace: All right, we are running out of time anyway. Let’s move on.

Last year Defence Secretary Mattis said that Russia is the greatest threat to the United States. And he has since made it clear, an even greater threat than terrorism. In March you introduced a new generation of Russian missiles, including what you called an invincible missile. You said that it could evade, defeat all of our missile defences, and you even released a video that showed that super missile flying over the United States and hitting Florida very near where President Trump’s estate is at Mar-a-Lago. Aren’t you escalating the arms race, and aren’t you being deliberately provocative?

Vladimir Putin: As for the video, it did not indicate that the missile targets US territory. You have to watch it more carefully. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

Second, all our strike systems target…

Chris Wallace: It shows Florida.

Vladimir Putin: No, it did not say Florida. This is not true. Watch it one more time, and pay more attention. It did not say Florida. All it made clear was that the missile was headed to the other side of the globe.

Chris Wallace: No, but you can see it on the map.

Vladimir Putin: No, you could not see this on the map. Just pay more attention when you watch instead of scaring your people with threats that do not exist. Yes, watch it carefully. Do you want me to give you this video as a gift?

As for the strike systems, let me remind you that they did not emerge out of nowhere. They emerged as a response to the unilateral withdrawal by the United States from the ABM Treaty. We warned our American colleagues right from the outset that we were not ready to build a missile defence system, since we did not believe in its effectiveness, and it was too costly. Instead we said that we would do everything to penetrate this shield.

As I have said on numerous occasions, but let me repeat it for the American audience, the response was the following: “The missile defence system we, the Americans, are building is not created against you, and you can do as you please. We will proceed from the premise that this is not against you.” In 2003 or 2004 I made a public statement about one of these systems. Our American partners did not respond in any way.

But now we have done it and showed what we have. That being said, this is a matter of negotiation, and we hope, and I hope very much that we will be able to come to solutions in terms of strategic stability that would be acceptable to both sides, including regarding short- and intermediate-range missiles.

Chris Wallace: I have limited time, I would like to ask you about the alleged INF violation, but I want to move on and ask you three final questions about Vladimir Putin. When you were first elected in the year 2000, you were portrayed as a democratic reformer, you talked about the value of European culture and you did not even rule out becoming a part of NATO. What happened?

Vladimir Putin: First, nothing has changed about me. I am the same as I was then. I became President of Russia when I was a grown man, and a person’s predisposition and fundamental beliefs do not change at that age.

But we have to react to what is happening around us. First, the two waves of NATO’s eastward expansion. When Soviet troops pulled out of Germany, we were told that there is one thing Russians can be absolutely certain of: that NATO will never expand beyond Germany’s borders.

There were two waves of expansion, contrary to our objections of principle. They did not give a damn about our objections. We asked you not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, but the United States pulled out of it unilaterally. You disregarded our calls not to do so and our proposals to work together. There are other examples of this kind.

Take the developments in Yugoslavia. You know that President Yeltsin was categorically against launching military operations without the approval of the UN Security Council, which is the only legal way of using the army. But nobody listened to us.

There were other factors that complicated our relationship. For example, the extraterritorial application of American criminal law, sanctions, and so on. Was it us that introduced the sanctions? No, it was you.

You asked me about Crimea and Ukraine. It was not us who organised a military coup there and used military force to change the government in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution, and it was not us who handed out pies to the rebels. We are aware of the complicated processes underway there, but this is not the way to resolve them. And where is this happening? Right at our doorstep.

So, nothing has happened to me. I would like to know what has happened to you.

Chris Wallace: You say nothing happened to you, but I need to ask you domestically, not internationally, domestically inside Russia. Why is that so many of the people that oppose Vladimir Putin end up dead or closed to it: former Russian spy and double agent Sergei Skripal, the victim of a nerve agent attack in England, Boris Nemtsov, a political opponent gunned down near the Kremlin, investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, murdered in an apartment building. Why is that so many people that were political enemies of Vladimir Putin are attacked?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, we all have many political opponents. President Trump has many political opponents too. Take any person involved in state…

Chris Wallace: But they do not end up dead.

Vladimir Putin: Sometimes they do. Haven’t Presidents been killed in the United States? Have you forgotten about that? Where was Kennedy killed, in the US or in Russia? And what happened to King? As a matter of fact, what happens during clashes between the police and civil society activists, for example, from ethnic African-American organisations? Does this happen in Russia or in the US? This is all taking place in the US. You have many challenges within your country.

It is a sad truth that Russia has not been spared criminal activity. In fact, the Russian state is still in the making, and unfortunately there are many manifestations of this kind. We are fighting this, and hold perpetrators to account.

You have mentioned the Skripals. We want to see the documents on this case, to get a glimpse of any materials. No one has said anything specific, just as with the accusations against Russia of meddling in the political processes in the US. We have not seen a single document.

We now learn that two more people have suffered from the toxic agent referred to as Novichok, but I had never even heard their names. Who are these people, how were they hurt and why?

Chris Wallace: Supposedly they picked up the bottle that was used to attack Skripal. Can I ask you one last question, sir?

Vladimir Putin: No, let’s stay on the subject. What bottle? Who picked it up? Where? What was its chemical composition? Or can it be that these people suffered from something else? Can it be that you have to look inside Great Britain to find the cause?

No one wants to get to the bottom of this issue. These are absolutely groundless accusations. Why all this? Why make our relations worse? We want to build a proper relationship with Great Britain as well.

Chris Wallace: Finally, I know one of the reasons that you wanted to do this interview was so that people in the United States and the West could get a better understanding of the real man. You are often portrayed as a strongman, an autocrat, a person who is a symbol of Russia’s strength. Are those fair characterisations of you, sir?

Vladimir Putin: I do not claim to be a symbol of Russia. But from the point of view of current law, the national flag, the anthem, and the presidency itself are to a certain extent the symbols of the country – and not only those of Russia but also of any other country.

I hope that my work also reflects what Russia is engaged in, what it is concerned about, and what it is ready to do to normalise our relations with all countries, including, of course, with such a great country as the United States of America.

I have mentioned the economy. Look, I cited these examples to Mr Trump. Currently, the Europeans sell $100 billion worth of goods on our market, plus another $50 billion worth of services. China sells approximately $57 billion worth of goods on our market. But do you know the figure for US sales? Twelve [billion dollars]. And another $5 billion of services.

This is the result of your policies, including the sanctions policy. But who needs that? You have just chased your own big companies from our market. They have left and made way for rivals, including in major projects that they were extremely interested in and invested in. Some of them even lost money. What is that for?

We are interested in developing relations in the area of security, strategic stability, crisis management, the fight against terrorism, and the economy. I hope that today President Trump and I have made at least the first step in that direction.

Chris Wallace: Mr President, thank you. Thank you for talking with us. Spasibo.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Alright, we’re back with a 2020 draft — but with a twist. This time we’re not interested in discussing who we think will win the Democratic nomination; we want to debate who we think will drop out next.

Already the days of a debate stage maxed out with 20 candidates seem to be a thing of the past: As Geoffrey wrote on Tuesday, only nine candidates have qualified for the third debate so far. So we’re interested in debating how the field will (or won’t!) winnow in the coming weeks.

Welcome to the first 2020 “Drop-Out Draft”!!!

The rules are simple: Three rounds (with three of us playing, that means nine picks in total) in which we pick from among the candidates FiveThirtyEight considers “major.” No

draft, because, well, that would be nuts. Whoever’s “team” includes the most candidates who drop out by the October debate (or by the time Iowa rolls around, if we want to be a bit more judicious and save face) will be the winner.

The order:

Geoffrey

Nathaniel

Sarah

OK, Geoff, you’re up! End our suspense and let me and Nathaniel know how royally screwed we are.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): OK, so my first pick is former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper. He had just 13,000 donors at the end of June and is very unlikely to make the September debate, considering he also has just one qualifying poll (he still needs three more). Plus, he has an exit ramp available to him: running for Senate in Colorado.

And it seems like Hickenlooper might be open to the idea of mounting a challenge to GOP Sen. Cory Gardner. There’s also some evidence that this might be a good move for Hickenlooper, too. A poll released Tuesday found him ahead of Gardner, 51 percent to 38 percent, and another survey this week showed Hickenlooper leading the crowded primary field by about 50 percentage points.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Good pick.

Yeah, Hickenlooper has resisted calls for him to run for Senate for a loooong time.

He even said back in February that “I’m not cut out to be a senator.” It seemed pretty definitive.

But then last week, he appeared to subtly change his tune when his communications director said “he hasn’t closed the door to anything.”

To me, that’s a sign that he may be preparing to jump ship.

sarahf: Do we think Hickenlooper is jeopardizing his Senate chances by continuing to stay in the presidential primary?

geoffrey.skelley: Sarah, he might be, but the Colorado Democratic primary field for the Senate race is crowded, too, with no obvious front-runner, and that is good news for Hickenlooper. It means he doesn’t have to rush to get into the race.

sarahf: And I guess with Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold ruling out running (she’d been speculated as a possible contender) … there really isn’t a clear front-runner yet.

geoffrey.skelley: Bingo. And maybe her avoidance of the race is a sign that she’s not sure Hickenlooper won’t end up running.

nrakich: This was kind of a silly story, but it was also reported a couple weeks ago that a firm that had previously worked for Hickenlooper registered domain names like “HickForSenate.com.”

geoffrey.skelley: Oh, I love a good domain registration story.

nrakich: None of these pieces of evidence is strong on its own, but in total, they might be pointing to something.

sarahf: OK, Geoff … so does Hickenlooper drop out before October? Or … before Iowa?

geoffrey.skelley: I think he drops out before October after failing to qualify for the September debate.

sarahf: Alright, you heard it here first folks! You’re up next, Nathaniel.

nrakich: OK, with the second overall pick, I choose Rep. Seth Moulton.

sarahf:

He’s still running?

nrakich: Haha, indeed. I’m a bit surprised that he is.

He didn’t even qualify for the first two debates, which every other major candidate without a good excuse (i.e., jumped in the race after the qualifying deadline for the first debate) did.

He’s almost certainly not going to make the September debate.

In addition, he reportedly had to let go of half his campaign staffers, indicating his campaign might be in financial trouble.

Finally, although he can legally run for president and for reelection to his House seat at the same time, it’s not a good look.

sarahf: Yeah, I imagine his calculus has to be pretty similar to Eric Swalwell — a House member who also ran for president, but has since dropped out to focus on his 2020 reelection bid.

geoffrey.skelley: All this makes sense to me, though I wonder if Moulton might hang around awhile longer. After all, the candidate filing deadline for Massachusetts isn’t until May 2020, whereas Swalwell had a December 2019 deadline to worry about if he was going to seek reelection.

nrakich: I hear that, Geoffrey, but Moulton is also already attracting primary challengers in the Massachusetts 6th District.

And he was already catching flak back home after he led a failed attempt to deprive Nancy Pelosi of the speakership after Democrats took back the House in 2018.

So I think he’d be smart to focus on his House primary, which I think he could be in real danger of losing.

geoffrey.skelley: But when does he drop out?

nrakich: Yeah, the one thing that gives me pause is the fact that he hasn’t already.

But I would say soon — particularly if he is indeed running out of money.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, hard to get people to work for you if you can’t give them a paycheck.

Now let’s see if Sarah will take my preferred next pick…

sarahf: Haha. l think I might get the first “bad pick” of the draft.

geoffrey.skelley: There are no bad picks … until there are bad picks. Lol.

sarahf: But first a step back to explain my rationale. I think there are two big groups of candidates when we’re talking about who drops out before Iowa.

You’ve got your unconventional, “never stood a chance” candidates like Mike Gravel, who simply don’t have the resources (or interest) to stay in any longer.

And then you’ve got your “also rans” like Swalwell (and Moulton), who I think could have held out until Iowa if they wanted to, but purposefully chose not to in order to avoid jeopardizing their political reputation. Like I wouldn’t be surprised if Swalwell mounts a Senate bid when Dianne Feinstein’s seat is up in 2024.

A candidate I think that falls into that category (although arguably, she shouldn’t) is … Kirsten Gillibrand!!!

nrakich: Outside the box!!

geoffrey.skelley: Now that is an interesting pick.

sarahf: She’s a talented career politician — she’s been in the Senate since 2009 and was in the House before that. And she maybe even picked up some momentum after the second debate (e.g., she now has one qualifying poll where she’s cracked 2 percent).

But to be clear, she’s still polling at 0.3 percent nationally, on average, according to Real Clear Politics.

So I think Gillibrand and her campaign are going to have some tough talks in the lead-up to October about her campaign and whether to fold it, because she’s got too many Senate colleagues in the race with whom she has close working relationships. In particular, I’m thinking Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, but even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

And so if she stays in too much longer without earning more support, I think there will be a lot of internal pressure from the party asking her to drop out.

Now … if she makes the September debate, discount everything I’ve said. But I don’t think she’ll make it. And I’m not convinced she’ll hang around for the October debate either, even though the DNC has said it will keep the polling and donor threshold the same as the September debate. As I’m not sure how much those few extra weeks would matter to her.

nrakich: I think that’s totally defensible. She was one of my late-round sleeper picks.

geoffrey.skelley: On the one hand, I think Gillibrand has the resources to fight on. But on the other hand, she really might miss the September debate and maybe decide to pull the plug.

sarahf: I totally agree on the resources front. I just think she’ll care more about exiting when it’s still the “no hard feelings” period.

nrakich: To me, Gillibrand is the one candidate who was supposed to be in the top tier but who has flopped the most.

So she might be the Scott Walker of 2020 — the big-name candidate who drops out because it just didn’t come together.

geoffrey.skelley: Though at least Walker led the polls in Iowa early on. But yeah, Gillibrand has never caught fire. The fact that Gillibrand pushed for former Sen. Al Franken’s resignation over allegations of sexual misconduct could be part of it, but there are also just a lot of top-tier candidates in the race.

nrakich: She has an outside shot to make the October debate, as Geoffrey wrote yesterday. If she makes that, I agree, she’ll obviously stay in. But if she doesn’t, she’s not one of these vanity candidates like Steyer or de Blasio. She really thought she could win, and if things aren’t going according to plan, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see her pull the plug.

geoffrey.skelley: Right, she’s a politician who wants to win office. She’s not running just to bring an issue or two to the forefront.

sarahf: OK, Geoffrey, you’re up.

geoffrey.skelley: Well, Sarah didn’t take my pick, so I’m going with Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. He’s already suspended his campaign once in the wake of the shooting in Dayton to return to Ohio, and he’s definitely not going to make the September debate. So I can see him dropping out by October.

Something to keep in mind with Ryan is that a successful reelection bid in the House is probably more important than sticking out the presidential race, as it could set him up to run for the Senate in 2022, when Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s seat is up, or for governor against GOP Gov. Mike DeWine.

I’m sure Ryan figured that a presidential run would help expand his name recognition and make connections for a potential future statewide bid. He’s routinely floated as a potential candidate for higher office, and with redistricting after the 2020 census, Ohio might lose a seat in reapportionment and put Ryan’s seat on the chopping block. Seeking to be Sherrod Brown 2.0 isn’t the worst strategy for an Ohio Democrat.

nrakich: Yeah, Ryan is an obvious pick … Although personally I’d rank him below the person I’m going to choose next…

But Ryan did run with a clear purpose: He really seems to believe in winning back the white factory worker for the Democratic Party. He also doesn’t face pressure to drop out to run for reelection, because Ohio law allows him to run for both.

On the other hand, he raised less in the second quarter — and had less cash on hand — than any other candidate FiveThirtyEight considers “major,” so he may not have the option to keep going.

sarahf: True. OK, Nathaniel, you’re up!

nrakich: My next pick is … Washington Gov. Jay Inslee!

The debates seem very important to Inslee. He tried to get one debate organized solely around his pet issue, climate change.

Yet he seems quite unlikely to make either the September or October debates.

I’m not sure why he would continue running if that happens.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, he’ll likely get the donors for September and October, but it seems unlikely he’ll get the polls he needs.

nrakich: Crucially, Inslee has the ability to run for a third term as governor in 2020.

But legally, he cannot be on the ballot for both governor and president.

And the potential gubernatorial field in Washington is in a holding pattern waiting for Inslee to make up his mind.

As a sitting governor, he is probably aware of pressures back home.

sarahf: Wow, two of the governors in the race out by October.

geoffrey.skelley: Inslee is a good pick. Once again, a candidate with some home-base electoral considerations. And as a governor who can run for a third term, that’s a pretty attractive alternative.

sarahf: When does Inslee have to decide if he’s going to run for a third term?

nrakich: The candidate filing deadline isn’t until May. But politically, that is untenable. He knows he needs to give other Democrats in Washington the chance to build up their campaigns before then if he’s not going to run.

geoffrey.skelley: Right. And this is a good moment to remind folks that a lot of states have multiple primaries: one for president and then a separate one for Congress or state offices. We’ve already talked about some states where this is true — Colorado, Massachusetts and Washington.

But there are also some states with consolidated primaries — their presidential and state-specific primaries take place the same day, which is the case in states like California, Illinois and Texas. Anyway, I mention this because the differences in filing deadlines can play a big part in the decision-making process for many of these candidates when it comes to deciding whether to drop out.

sarahf: OK, I’m up!

My second pick is less bold than my first, but arguably more likely to happen, at least by October anyway — Bill de Blasio.

De Blasio always had a tough road ahead of him, and as much as I can’t believe that the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, stands more of a chance than the mayor of New York City, that’s where I think we currently are. De Blasio strikes me as a candidate who never really stood a chance, or wasn’t running to win — although, I can’t exactly tell you what issue he was running on, per se.

And the most damning stat of his candidacy was his popularity at home — New Yorkers don’t like him and didn’t want him to run!

It’s like if those at home, who in theory know you best, don’t like you all that much, why try to catapult yourself onto a national stage? Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was at least popular when he mounted his 2008 presidential bid.

nrakich: Oh, see, Sarah, that’s kind of why I don’t think he’ll drop out anytime soon.

De Blasio strikes me as the kind of candidate who isn’t really running to win, just to throw some rhetorical bombs and maybe have a good time.

So why let having almost no chance of winning the nomination stop you?

Reportedly, de Blasio doesn’t like his day job as New York City mayor. So I think he’ll try to prolong his presidential campaign as long as possible — to stay away from City Hall.

geoffrey.skelley: Resources could be a problem though — de Blasio only raised $1.1 million by the end of June, and had just 6,700 donors. Yeesh. So yeah, I can see him leaving just because he can’t afford to stay in.

sarahf: Yeesh is right. OK, Geoffrey. Last round! Make it count.

geoffrey.skelley: Alright, I think there’s an easy pick that I would take if we had four rounds, but given we only have three picks, I think I’m going to go for my sleeper choice: former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke. I think it’s possible that he might actually consider running for Senate again. He’s polling at 2 percent nationally with no obvious path for improvement, and he’s even worse off in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Not to mention, O’Rourke abandoned the campaign trail to go home to El Paso after the mass shooting there. So if I squint, I can see him deciding to drop the presidential bid for a more winnable race — at least in terms of his party’s nomination. At this point I think he would be much, much more likely to win the Democratic nomination for Senate in Texas than the presidency, and given his performance in the 2018 Senate contest, maybe he could even win the general. He’d be an underdog, but he’s been there before.

nrakich: Yesssss. I’m so glad someone chose him!

Mostly so I wouldn’t be tempted to waste my own pick on him

But I totally agree. O’Rourke has been home in El Paso helping his community heal. And that’s the kind of campaign break that leads to self-reflection — maybe the people at home are the ones you’d rather be trying to help.

To be more crassly political, it might also be a chance to step back and see that your campaign has been a pretty big flop so far — after you entered the presidential race expecting to be one of the four or five front-runners.

sarahf: Right, has anyone experienced a bigger flop in the polls?

nrakich: At one point, O’Rourke registered in the double digits — sometimes in third place! — in some polls right after his announcement. Now he’s at 2 points in the Real Clear Politics average.

geoffrey.skelley: Pete Buttigieg’s campaign really stepped all over O’Rourke.

sarahf: Right, and Nate wrote about this last month, but something tricky about O’Rourke is that his base (young, white, moderate Democrats) is smaller than you’d expect, so he’s running to attract a segment of the party that isn’t all that big to begin with. It doesn’t help that he’s faced stiff competition in candidates like Buttigieg or Warren in trying to diversify his appeal.

nrakich: O’Rourke also seems to be a guy prone to a lot of soul-searching. So if any candidate who has already made the September debate (as he has) is going to drop out for personal reasons before then, I bet it would be him.

geoffrey.skelley: And while he’s not leading in most Texas presidential primary polls, he still does OK, so I think he could successfully pivot to the Senate race. Anyway, I wouldn’t take it to the bank, but his leaving to go to El Paso really made me wonder if he might drop out.

sarahf: Good pick.

Alright, Nathaniel, you’re up!

nrakich: OK, I’m going to go with the easy pick, then (thanks, Geoffrey!): Montana Gov. Steve Bullock.

sarahf: Ahh!! Stole my pick.

nrakich: Bullock will continue to face a lot of pressure from party elders (and even in his Twitter replies!) to switch to the Senate race.

He’s similar to Hickenlooper in that regard, although frankly I think Democrats’ chances in Colorado’s Senate race don’t change that much if they nominate Hickenlooper vs. someone else. Whereas in Montana, Bullock is legitimately the only candidate who can probably put that Senate seat in play.

Now, like Hickenlooper, Bullock has denied any interest in the Senate.

But maybe, if he doesn’t make the September or October debates, that will change.

He is term-limited as governor, so the alternative is basically to go home and retire.

geoffrey.skelley: But unlike Hickenlooper, Bullock would probably enter a Senate general election in Montana as a clear underdog against Republican Sen. Steve Daines. The state did reelect Democratic Sen. Jon Tester last year, but Tester was an incumbent and it was a favorable environment for a Democrat. And even still, it was close! Bullock probably wouldn’t have as favorable as national environment working in his favor.

nrakich: That’s true.

sarahf: OK, last pick!! This pick is also not that surprising, but speaks to a similar trend of many of our picks (although, not all) — another lesser-known moderate in the party dropping out: Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

He’s done a good job cracking 1 percent pretty consistently in the polls, but he hasn’t achieved more than that, so I don’t see his campaign catching on otherwise.

That said, there’s not necessarily a good reason why he’d be the next to drop out (no pressing filing deadline), but he also strikes me as someone who is going to approach this fairly pragmatically, so if he thinks he doesn’t have support, I do think he’ll bow out.

What do you make of many of the more moderate members of the party being some of the first candidates to go?

nrakich: Yeah, we didn’t name a single person of color in this draft, and only one woman! I think the “electable white men” are definitely the favorites to drop out soon.

geoffrey.skelley: But some of them were likely to be also-rans to begin with (Ryan, Moulton, former Rep. John Delaney), but the fact that statewide electeds like Bennet, Bullock and Hickenlooper are struggling probably has a lot to do with both the mood of the party as well as Joe Biden’s presence in the race.

nrakich: Right, at the risk of stating the obvious, I think part of what we’re seeing is there’s already a popular electable white man in the race sucking up all the oxygen: Biden.

geoffrey.skelley: Though I will say that it’s hard for me to see some of these guys being able to pick up Biden’s mantle if the former vice president weren’t in the race. The fact that they’re ideologically similar to Biden could help, but sharing the same moderate approach as Biden will only take these candidates so far. It’s not like all of Biden’s backers would just default to these candidates.

nrakich: Agreed, but that’s why I think it’s less about being moderate and more about being a white man/being seen as “electable” (which is probably related).

Like, de Blasio and Inslee aren’t moderate.

But I agree, Geoffrey — the field is so crowded that I don’t think any one of them would be doing significantly better if Biden weren’t in the race. Biden’s support would probably spread out evenly rather than going entirely to, say, Hickenlooper.

But even in that case, maybe someone like Inslee would be polling at 3 percent and would make the debates. So it could have made a difference for some of these candidates.

sarahf: OK, let’s recap. Here’s our teams. Who wants to vote first?

Who will drop out before the October debate?

Round Geoff Nathaniel Sarah 1 John Hickenlooper Seth Moulton Kirsten Gillibrand 2 Tim Ryan Jay Inslee Bill de Blasio 3 Beto O’Rourke Steve Bullock Michael Bennet

  I think I’m going to go with the safe pick here. Nathaniel’s draft picks seem the most likely on average to actually drop out before October.

nrakich: Yeah, I like my team. But I appreciate how you guys were willing to pick some dark horses! You should get extra credit if those turn out to be true.

geoffrey.skelley: I agree that Nathaniel’s team probably has the best overall chance to go three for three on dropping out.

nrakich: But let’s be real — will even two of these nine candidates still be in the race come Iowa?

[giancarlonicoli]

Mass Hysteria

by

Mike Mish Shedlock

5 hrs

-edited

The mass hysteria following Trump's meeting with Putin is likely to last for days. Most are outraged. Few see the light.

My article Congratulations to President Trump for an Excellent Summit with Putin spawned numerous some I could not tell if they were sarcastic or not.

For example,   reader Brian stated " There is zero doubt now that Putin stole the election from Hillary. So much so that she MUST be given the nomination again in 2020. All potential challengers must step aside. To refuse her the 2020 nomination would be evidence of traitorous activities with Putin."'

I congratulated Brian for brilliant sarcasm but he piled on. It now seems he was serious.

Mainstream media, the Left an the Right were in general condemnation.

Numerous cries of treason emerged from the Left and the Right (see the above link)

It Happened - No Trial Necessary

A friend I highly respect commented "There is simply no question that they did it.  You can legitimately claim that it’s not important or that there has been no tie to Trump shown.   On the Russians’ side, they can say, screw off, we were pursuing our interests.  But you can’t take the view it did not happen. It happened."

There is a question who did it. Indictments are just that, not proof.

The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could control him.

They Are All Liars

It's a mystery why anyone would believe these proven liars. That does not mean I believe Putin either. They are all capable liars.

Let's step back from the absurd points of view to reality.

US Meddling

The US tries to influence elections in other countries and has a history of assisting the forcible overthrow of governments we don’t like.  

Vietnam

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Drone policy

All of the above are massive disasters of US meddling. They are all actions of war, non-declared, and illegal.

I cannot and do not condone such actions even if they were legal.

911 and ISIS resulted from US meddling. The migration crisis in the EU is a direct consequence of US meddling. The Iranian revolution was a direct consequence of US meddling.

Now we are pissing and moaning that Russia spent a few million dollars on Tweets to steal the election. Please be serious.

Let's Assume

Let's assume for one second the DNC hack was Russia-based.

Is there a reason to not be thankful for evidence that Hillary conspired to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination?

Pity Hillary?

We are supposed to pity Hillary?

The outrage from the Right is amazing.

It's pretty obvious Senator John McCain wanted her to win. Neither faced a war or military intervention they disapproved of.

Common Sense

Let's move on to a common sense position from Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept.

Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a “Danger to America” or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?

Greenwald vs. Cirincione: Should Trump Have Canceled Summit After U.S. Indictment of Russian Agents?

Greenwald vs. Joe Cirincione

​GLENN GREENWALD: In 2007, during the Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama was asked whether he would meet with the leaders of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Iran without preconditions. He said he would. Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t, because it would be used as a propaganda tool for repressive dictators. And liberals celebrated Obama. It was one of his greatest moments and one of the things that I think helped him to win the Democratic nomination, based on the theory that it’s always better to meet with leaders, even if they’re repressive, than to isolate them or to ignore them. In 1987, when President Reagan decided that he wanted to meet with Soviet leaders, the far right took out ads against him that sounded very much just like what we just heard from Joe, accusing him of being a useful idiot to Soviet and Kremlin propaganda, of legitimizing Russian aggression and domestic repression at home.

GLENN GREENWALD: It is true that Putin is an authoritarian and is domestically repressive. That’s true of many of the closest allies of the United States, as well, who are even far more repressive, including ones that fund most of the think tanks in D.C., such as the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. And I think the most important issue is the one that we just heard, which is that 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are in the hands of two countries—the United States and Russia—and having them speak and get along is much better than having them isolate one another and increase the risk of not just intentional conflict, but misperception and miscommunication, as well.

​JOE CIRINCIONE: Right. Let’s be clear. Glenn, there’s nothing wrong with meeting. I agree with you. Leaders should meet, and we should be negotiating with our foes, with those people we disagree with. We’re better off when we do that. And the kind of attacks you saw on Barack Obama were absolutely uncalled for, and you’re right to condemn those.

​JOE CIRINCIONE: What I’m worried about is this president meeting with this leader of Russia and what they’re going to do. That’s what’s so wrong about this summit coming now, when you have Donald Trump, who just attacked the NATO alliance, who calls our European allies foes, who turns a blind eye to what his director of national intelligence called the warning lights that are blinking red. About what? About Russian interference in our elections. So you just had a leader of Russia, Putin, a skilled tactician, a skilled strategist, interfere in a U.S. election. To what? To help elect Donald Trump.

GLENN GREENWALD: I think this kind of rhetoric is so unbelievably unhinged, the idea that the phishing links sent to John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee are the greatest threat to American democracy in decades. People are now talking about it as though it’s on par with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that the lights are blinking red, in terms of the threat level. This is lunacy, this kind of talk. I spent years reading through the most top-secret documents of the NSA, and I can tell you that not only do they send phishing links to Russian agencies of every type continuously on a daily basis, but do far more aggressive interference in the cybersecurity of every single country than Russia is accused of having done during the 2016 election. To characterize this as some kind of grave existential threat to American democracy is exactly the kind of rhetoric that we heard throughout the Bush-Cheney administration about what al-Qaeda was like.

JOE CIRINCIONE: Why does Donald Trump feel that he has to meet alone with Putin? What is going on there? I mean, that—when Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, at least he had George Shultz with him. The two of them, you know, were meeting with Gorbachev and his foreign minister at the time. This is—it’s deeply disturbing. It makes you feel that Trump is hiding something, that he is either trying to make a deal with Putin, reporting something to Putin. I tell you, I know U.S. intelligence officials—I’m probably going right into Glenn’s wheelhouse here. But U.S. intelligence officials are concerned about what Donald Trump might be revealing to the Russian leader, the way he revealed classified information to the Russian foreign minister when he met privately with him in the Oval Office at the beginning of his term. No, I don’t like it one bit.

GLENN GREENWALD: I continue to be incredibly frustrated by the claim that we hear over and over, and that we just heard from Joe, that Donald Trump does everything that Vladimir Putin wants, and that if he were a paid agent of the Russian government, there’d be—he would be doing nothing different. I just went through the entire list of actions that Donald Trump has taken and statements that he has made that are legitimately adverse to the interest of the Russian government, that Barack Obama specifically refused to do, despite bipartisan demands that he do them, exactly because he didn’t want to provoke more tensions between the United States and Russia. Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well. So is expelling Russian diplomats and imposing serious sanctions on oligarchs that are close to the Putin regime. You can go down the list, over and over and over, in the 18 months that he’s been in office, and see all the things that Donald Trump has done that is adverse, in serious ways, to the interests of Vladimir Putin, including ones that President Obama refused to do. So, this film, this movie fairytale, that I know is really exciting—it’s like international intrigue and blackmail, like the Russians have something over Trump; it’s like a Manchurian candidate; it’s from like the 1970s thrillers that we all watched—is inane—you know, with all due respect to Joe. I mean, it’s—but it’s in the climate, because it’s so contrary to what it is that we’re seeing. Now, this idea of meeting alone with Vladimir Putin, the only way that you would find that concerning is if you believed all that.

JOE CIRINCIONE: So, Trump knew that this indictment was coming down, before he went to Europe, and still he never says a word about it. What he does is continue his attacks on our alliances, i.e. he continues his attacks on our free press, he continues his attacks on FBI agents who were just doing their job, and supports this 10-hour show hearing that the House of Representatives had. It’s really unbelievable that Trump is doing these things and never says one word about it. He still has not said a word about those indictments.

GLENN GREENWALD: That’s because the reality is—and I don’t know if Donald Trump knows this or doesn’t know this, has stumbled into the truth or what—but the reality is that what the Russians did in 2016 is absolutely not aberrational or unusual in any way. The United—I’m sorry to say this, but it’s absolutely true. The United States and Russia have been interfering in one another’s domestic politics for since at least the end of World War II, to say nothing of what they do in far more extreme ways to the internal politics of other countries. Noam Chomsky was on this very program several months ago, and he talked about how the entire world is laughing at this indignation from the United States—”How dare you interfere in our democracy!”—when the United States not only has continuously in the past done, but continues to do far more extreme interference in the internal politics of all kinds of countries, including Russia.

GLENN GREENWALD: The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat this as though it’s some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive.

GLENN GREENWALD: It wasn’t just Hillary Clinton in 2016 who lost this election. The entire Democratic Party has collapsed as a national political force over the last decade. They’ve lost control of the Senate and of the House and of multiple statehouses and governorships. They’re decimated as a national political force. And the reason is exactly what Joe said. They become the party of international globalization. They’re associated with Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires and corporate interests, and have almost no connection to the working class. And that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it’s because Vladimir Putin ran some fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails. And I think that until we put this in perspective, about what Russia did in 2016 and the reality that the U.S. does that sort of thing all the time to Russia and so many other countries, we’re going to just not have the conversation that we need to be having about what these international institutions, that are so sacred—NATO and free trade and international trade organizations—have done to people all over the world, and the reason they’re turning to demagogues and right-wing extremists because of what these institutions have done to them. That’s the conversation we need to be having, but we’re not having, because we’re evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin. And that, to me, is even more dangerous for our long-term prospects than this belligerence that’s in the air about how we ought to look at Moscow.

Indictments and First Year Law

Mish: I now wish to return to a statement my friend made regarding the idea "No question Russia did it".

From Glenn Greenwald

As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it’s certainly the most specific accounting yet that we’ve gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did in 2016. But it’s extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won’t be presented until a trial or until Robert Mueller actually issues a report to Congress. And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we’re simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush’s former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. But even if the Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we don’t talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite dangerous.

Mish - Six Questions

Is this a trial or a witch hunt?

Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars?

Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved?

Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence?

Even if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected otherwise?

Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?

Irrational and Dangerous

I don't know about you, but I have no reason to believe known liars and hypocrites.

I disagree with Trump all the time, in fact, more often than not.

The amount of venom on Trump over this is staggering.

Adding a missing word, I stand by my previous statement: "Nearly every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left and Right is worthy of immense praise."

If you disagree please provide examples. The only two I can come up with are Pearl Harbor and 911. In both, the US was directly attacked.

For rebuttal purposes I offer Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Iran, WWI,  treatment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and McCarthyism.

Greenwald accurately assesses the situation as "really irrational and really quite dangerous."

Indeed.

And if indictments and accusations were crimes, we wouldn't need a jury.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

[anthonycharlestabone]

Having trouble viewing? View in Browser Tuesday, November 7, 2017 Welcome to Fox News First. Not signed up yet? Click here. Developing now, Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017: Election Day: Trump, Brazile shocker loom in key Virginia, New Jersey gubernatorial races Questions surround oversight that enabled Texas church shooter to buy weapons New memos cast further doubt on James Comey's credibility in Hillary Clinton email case "Special Report" Exclusive: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vows Japan and the U.S. will work together against North Korean threats Report: Harvey Weinstein paid investigators, Mossad agents to prevent sex allegations from becoming public THE LEAD STORY: Democrats have worked feverishly all year to make nearly every local election a referendum on President Trump – and today's gubernatorial races are no exception. The Trump factor looms large in the marquee Virginia gubernatorial race, where Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam and his allies have churned out mailers and ads tying Republican rival Ed Gillespie to the Trump White House at every turn ... However, the Trump-referendum strategy has not been particularly successful for Democrats in the House special elections so far this year. But this time, polls in New Jersey and Virginia’s gubernatorial races show the Democratic candidates in the lead. In New Jersey, Democratic nominee Phil Murphy holds a substantial lead over Republican Kim Guadagno.  But the race in Virginia is considerably tighter. According to the latest Fox News Poll released Monday, Northam holds a 5-point edge over Gillespie, who says there is “no doubt” the polls are close. Democrats are also wary of another factor - Hillary Clinton and her baggage of scandals. Some Democrats are worried that former interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile and her new book's scathing criticism of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and revelations that the nomination was "rigged" in Clinton's favor against Bernie Sanders will impact today's elections. Virginia governor race: Who are Ed Gillespie and Ralph Northam? Stay with Fox News for full coverage of today's elections on all platforms. Tune in to our prime-time coverage when polls close tonight, starting with "The Story with Martha MacCallum" at 7 ET, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" at 8, followed by "Hannity"" at 9, "The Ingraham Angle" at 10 and "Fox News @ Night" at 11.  TUNE IN: Donna Brazile will sit down with Tucker Carlson for a must-see interview on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" this Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET DEADLY OVERSIGHT: Critics are wondering how the U.S. Air Force could have neglected to report Texas church shooter Devin Kelley’s domestic violence conviction to the FBI, leaving the door open for him to buy weapons ...  Kelley killed at least 26 people Sunday when he opened fire at a church in Sutherland Springs. He had previously served in the U.S. Air Force until 2014, when he received a bad conduct discharge from the military. Kelley had been court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and reportedly fracturing his stepson’s skull on purpose and was convicted on two charges of domestic assault. Even though it was required by the Pentagon, Kelley’s conviction wasn’t submitted to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Investigation Services Division for inclusion in the National Criminal Information Center - the database that is used to conduct background checks on would-be gun purchasers. Texas church shooter killed grandmother-in-law during shooting, reports say Fox News Opinion: Liberal media fixates on laws that wouldn't have stopped attack, ignores good guy with gun Ingraham: Some reactions to Texas shooting revealed 'elite hostility to people of faith' WILL COMEY EVER BE CALLED BACK TO THE HILL? Newly-released memos show that former FBI Director James Comey softened his language between an early draft and the final copy of his statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case ... In a draft dated May 2, 2016, Comey accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent" in handling classified information. But in a subsequent draft dated June 10, 2016, he modified his statement to claim that Clinton had been "extremely careless." Comey stuck to that modified language when he announced in July 2016 that there would be no charges against Clinton. This may only further fuel some lawmakers' desire to have Comey return to Capitol Hill and address some inconsistencies in his testimony.  Flashback: Comey drafted letter on Clinton email investigation before completing interviews, FBI confirms "SPECIAL REPORT" EXCLUSIVE: Japanese Prime Minister Shizo Abe insisted the United States and Japan will work together to respond to North Korea's nuclear threat ... “Under this very strong U.S.-Japan alliance whenever an attack is made on Japan, Japan and the U.S. will firmly work closely together to respond to those threats and we have been confirming this," Abe told "Special Report" anchor Bret Baier in an exclusive interview. The prime minister explained that peace talks with North Korea have not been effective for Japan.  "North Korea has used those talks just to gain time to further develop the nuclear program as well as missiles," Abe said. "So North Korean dialogue just for the purpose of dialogue is meaningless. That is our experience." Abe's comments came as President Trump traveled to South Korea to meet with President Moon Jae-in and called North Korea a "worldwide threat" that requires "worldwide action." However, Trump also called on North Korea to “come to the table” and "make a deal." Fox News Opinion: Trump shows America is through being a chump in Asia WEINSTEIN'S 'ARMY' EXPOSED: Disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein spent more than a year using private investigators to track actresses and journalists in an effort to stop his predatory behavior from going public, according to a new "New Yorker" report ...The latest "New Yorker" article is by journalist Ronan Farrow, who wrote the initial exposé on Weinstein. It alleges that Weinstein hired firms like Black Cube, which is largely made up of former officers from Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies, to look into women who could potentially go on the record about his sexual harassment and assault -- and to look into journalists working on similar stories, including Farrow himself. The goal: to “target” and suppress anyone who might come forward to ruin Weinstein's reputation, the article said. Weinstein expelled from Television Academy   AS SEEN ON FOX NEWS TRUMP TAX PLAN VOW: "This is a pass-fail exercise. It's critical to the economy and we're going to get it done."  – Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," discussing President Trump's tax reform plan and its chances of being executed. WATCH DEMS EATING THEIR OWN: "This is the chickens coming home to roost on their identity politics, their race-baiting. Now, they're eating their own on those very issues." – Townhall's Katie Pavlich, on "Outnumbered," sounding off turmoil in the Democratic Party surrounding Donna Brazile's new book. WATCH   ACROSS THE NATION As kidnapped American professor's health deteriorates, pressure on Pakistan again mounts. Horrific pics show tiger mauling zookeeper. US college grad disappears in Peru while on backpacking trip, no contact since Sept. 28.   MINDING YOUR BUSINESS GOP tax plan would abandon homeowners: Realogy CEO. Trump in South Korea: Whirlpool, Qualcomm and the bitter trade battle. Saudi Arabia anti-corruption sweep: How will surprise probe affect Aramco IPO?   NEW IN FOX NEWS OPINION I'm a conservative and I hate the Republican tax plan. Democrat and ex-CIA agent: Trump needs to focus on Making America Feel Good Again. Veterans and their service dogs: Keep your paws off.   HOLLYWOOD SQUARED Marilyn Manson pretends to shoot at audience with fake rifle at San Bernardino concert. Alec Baldwin make unsubstantiated claim that Melania Trump likes his SNL impression. Taylor Swift threatens lawsuit over 'defamatory' article linking her to white supremacists.    DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS? Black Friday 2017 deals and promotions.  New orangutan species discovered, but could soon be extinct. Lamborghini Terzo Millennio concept electric car unveiled, hints at Lambo's future.   STAY TUNED On Fox News: Texas Church Massacre: We'll continue to have the latest developments from the scene throughout the day on all Fox News platforms! Fox & Friends, 6 a.m. ET: NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch reflects on the Texas church massacre; former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer sounds off on President Trump's trip to Asia, the pivotal gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey and more; and Judge Andrew Napolitano breaks down the latest in the Sen. Robert Menendez corruption trial. Special Report, 6 p.m. ET: Bret is on the ground and on the scene on President Trump's trip to Asia with live analysis and breaking news. Fox News @ Night, 11 p.m. ET: Vice President Mike Pence sits down with Shannon Bream before his visit to comfort victims of the Texas church massacre. On Fox Business: Mornings with Maria, 6 a.m. ET: Former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski breaks down the president's trip to Asia; Marc Short, White House Director of Legislative Affairs, discusses his upcoming meeting with Senate Democrats on tax reform; and Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi discusses why he opposes Trump's tax reform plan. Varney & Co., 9 a.m. ET:  Jeff Campbell, former Burger King CEO, and Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, talk tax reform prognosis. Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Noon ET  - White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney addresses spending concerns over the GOP tax plan. On Fox News Radio: CHECK IT OUT  - Fox News Radio has launched the Fox News Rundown! This long-form podcast features insights from top newsmakers, along with reporters and contributors from across all Fox News Channel platforms. All episodes of this podcast can be found at: www.foxnewsrundown.com. Want it sent straight to your mobile device? Subscribe through Apple Podcasts, Google Play, and Stitcher.   #OnThisDay 1991: Magic Johnson announces that he has tested positive for HIV, and is retiring from the NBA. 1954:  CBS News' Face the Nation premieres with Ted Koop as host; the guest was Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy. 1917: Russia's Bolshevik Revolution takes place as forces led by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin overthrow the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky.   Thank you for joining us on Fox News First! Enjoy your day and we'll see you in your inbox first thing Wednesday morning. Unsubscribe | Contact Us ©2017 Fox News Network, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036. Privacy Policy.

[pabluesman]

The latest rant:

Florida GOP consultant Aaron Nevins

Well, folks. Things are heating up in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, beyond hacked Clinton emails and DNC memos, the hacker known as "Guccifer 2.0" also sent analyses of Democratic voter turnout in Florida to a GOP political operative named Aaron Nevis. Nevis apparently told Guccifer to "Feel free to send any Florida based information." This information was then posted to Nevis's blog at HelloFLA.com, which he runs under the pseudonym "Mark Miewurd." This was in the form of both direct links and links to Guccifer 2.0's web site here. Naturally, Guccifer is denying any links to the Russian government. Also naturally, Nevis's blog does not contain anything that shows that he pursued Guccifer to obtain these data -- at least, not initially. However, according to the Wall Street Journal article, Nevis did set up a DropBox account to receive large files, and ended up with 2.5 G of data from the DCCC ... which was then published on HelloFLA.com. Links to these data were also sent to Roger Stone who, at the time, was an "informal adviser" to then-candidate trump. Stone denies any involvement with Russia with regard to elections, and says that he has not been contacted by the FBI. He confirmed that he did receive a link to the HelloFLA blog article about the stolen data from Guccifer, but says that he never shared it with anyone. In addition to posting this material on his blog, Nevis also passed some along to journalists in Florida. However, he did not use any these data in his consulting business running grassroots-style campaigns for landowners and corporations seeking to have an influence in local politics. According to U. S. officials in the intelligence community, Guccifer 2.0 is linked to Russian military intelligence (of course, Guccifer denies a link). The FBI and Congressional committees are currently looking into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election. Russia denies any meddling, as well as any links to Gucifer 2.0. These inquiries have also encompassed Stone's potential involvement, say sources familiar with the inquiries. So those are the facts as reported by the Wall Street Journal, a publication which absolutely nobody in their right mind could accuse of being in the tank for liberals. Now for the speculative -- highly speculative -- bits of this article. Fair warning: what follows sounds insane, and there are going to be those who would ship me off to a rubber room as a result. Understand that this is an exercise in speculation only; there is absolutely zero solid evidence of any of the following hypotheses. Moving right along ... In February 2016, mere nanoseconds after the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senator Mitch McConnell stepped in front of the microphones to announce that the Senate would not -- repeat, NOT -- consider a replacement nominee from Obama, citing some "rule" he just made up about presidents not being allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices in the final year of their term. This was based on the so-called "Biden Rule," in which Joe Biden, in a 1992 speech, said it was advisable for a president in the midst of a re-election campaign not to nominate a Supreme Court justice until after the election -- win or lose -- to avoid politicizing the nomination. This was different from the "rule" McConnell cited in the following ways: first, Biden was speaking hypothetically, as there were no open seats on the bench at the time. Second, he was talking about a sitting president in the last year of his first term who was running for re-election. Third, he very clearly stipulated that the nomination should proceed after the election regardless of the outcome. Despite these conditions, and despite the fact that all polling at the time showed the GOP trailing the Democrats by a wide margin, McConnell stated that postponing nomination hearings until after the election was the best way to protect "the voice of the American people" ... even though the American public had already spoken by electing President Obama -- twice. This leads to one of two conclusions regarding McConnell's behavior. One the one hand, he may have been speaking out of hubris and gambling that a Republican was going to win despite the odds. This is completely out of character for McConnell. He has never been a gambler ... rather, he is a very shrewd, highly partisan politician who does not make any moves unless he already knows what the outcome is going to be. On the other hand, perhaps he already knew what the outcome would be. Recent revelations that Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, and other House Republicans were aware of Russian influence fairly early on but chose to remain silent would insinuate that McConnell knew about this stuff too. And if he knew that Russia was screwing around with the election, and that trump was going to win as a result, then this would satisfy his "need to know beforehand" condition. My vote is for the latter. It seems to me that McConnell not only knew about Russian interference, but perhaps even had a hand in planning and executing it ... and he has been very skilled at keeping his hands clean of the matter. I strongly believe that Russian interference in the election of 2016 goes much deeper than Guccifer 2.0 and a small-time operative in Florida. My hunch is that it extends to the highest levels of Congress. I sincerely believe that Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Jason Chaffitz, and several other members of both the House and the Senate were complicit in delegitimizing the election and getting trump elected through illegal means, all in the name of retaining power. I also think this effort began almost immediately after the 2012 election, and that 2014 was sort of a proof of concept. If you recall, polling was off for that election as well. According to every poll at the time, the Democrats were supposed to retain control of the Senate and reduce the lead of the Republicans in the House, and state races were more or less even. What actually happened was that the Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time since 2006, they increased their majority in the House, and they won 31 governorships and majorities in 68 state legislative chambers. While there was no evidence of Russian interference back then, in hindsight it is plausible that the 2014 election was a test run for 2016. To put on the tin foil hat for a moment, this hypothesis makes a bit of sense. Consider that the first thing the Republicans did after getting control of both chambers was to institute a policy of "Nobama" across the board, obstructing everything the President tried to do, no matter how trivial. During the 114th Congress, we saw a lot of nothing being done ... the Republicans refused to even discuss anything, much less vote on anything, unless it was clear that obstruction was political suicide. At the time people were baffled by this approach, but when viewed through the "Russia Conspiracy" lens it starts to become slightly more understandable. Stipulating that this is true, then, the question becomes: why did it become such a clusterfuck in this election? If the Russians had meddled in the midterms, they had done so without leaving a trace. So why did it become public this time around? There are currently two theories concerning this. The first is sheer arrogance -- they figured that, since 2014 had gone so smoothly, 2016 would be a cakewalk and they got sloppy. Perhaps Russia had used internal security personnel in 2014 and contracted out in 2016 to try to further detach themselves, or maybe they were spooked by the Republican Clown Car in the primaries and were worried that their orange puppet wouldn't secure the nomination. Regardless, assuming that Guccifer 2.0 was their contracted distributor, they chose poorly in that this person was less than discreet. The second theory is that McConnell actually masterminded the leaks as a way of discrediting political opponents in the House. By casting Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, and others, as co-conspirators, he could then politically castrate them and install people that he favored, which -- combined with a pliable stooge as president (he thought) -- would allow him to push through his agenda pretty much unimpeded ... and maybe set himself up for the White House (although, to be fair, he has given absolutely zero indication in any interest in this). All of this sounds like a plot line in "House of Cards," I get that. As I said, speculation only. But it does make you think. Please like and share my page at http://ift.tt/2ovd0xH for more.

[studentofrhetoric-blog]

Saturday, February 25th, 2017

International News:

--- "North Korea is evading international sanctions with a sophisticated network of overseas companies, enabled partly by its continued access to the international banking system, says a forthcoming United Nations report seen by Reuters. North Korea is under heavy U.N. sanctions and a strict arms embargo designed to impede the development of its banned nuclear and missile programs. The U.N. panel of experts, which produced the 100-page draft report, was created to investigate reported infringements of those sanctions. “Designated entities and banks have continued to operate in the sanctioned environment by using agents who are highly experienced and well trained in moving money, people and goods, including arms and related materiel, across borders,” the report says. U.N. member states should “exercise heightened vigilance” over North Korean diplomats engaged in commercial activities, it says, because some may be providing financial support to illegal networks."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-sanctions-un-idUSKBN164043

--- "German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday that Germany needed to fulfill its commitment to boost defense spending to meet NATO's target of 2 percent of gross domestic product. "Obligations have to be fulfilled and others in the world will demand that of us, and I think they're right that Germany must fulfill its obligations too," she said at an election campaign event in her constituency of Stralsund in northeastern Germany. Germany has come under increased pressure since the election of U.S. President Donald Trump to meet NATO's defense spending target, which was agreed by all members of the 28-nation alliance in 2014."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-merkel-idUSKBN1640A8?il=0

--- "French President Francois Hollande fired back at Donald Trump on Saturday after the U.S. president remarked in a speech that a friend thought "Paris is no longer Paris" after attacks by Islamist militants. Hollande said Trump should show support for U.S. allies. "There is terrorism and we must fight it together. I think that it is never good to show the smallest defiance toward an allied country. I wouldn't do it with the United States and I'm urging the U.S. president not to do it with France," Hollande said."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-usa-paris-idUSKBN1640CD?il=0

--- "The PLA Navy is likely to secure significant new funding in China's upcoming defense budget as Beijing seeks to check U.S. dominance of the high seas and step up its own projection of power around the globe. China's navy has been taking an increasingly prominent role in recent months, with a rising star admiral taking command, its first aircraft carrier sailing around self-ruled Taiwan and new Chinese warships popping up in far-flung places. Now, with President Donald Trump promising a U.S. shipbuilding spree and unnerving Beijing with his unpredictable approach on hot button issues including Taiwan and the South and East China Seas, China is pushing to narrow the gap with the U.S. Navy."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-defence-navy-idUSKBN16500P

Domestic & International News:

--- "The Kuwaiti government could pay up to $60,000 to President Donald Trump's hotel in Washington for a party on Saturday that will be an early test of Trump's promise to turn over profits from such events to the U.S. Treasury. The Kuwait Embassy is hosting an event to mark their National Day. Similar National Day celebrations at the Trump International Hotel for a crowd of several hundred can run from $40,000 to $60,000, according to cost estimates from the hotel seen by Reuters. The hotel declined to comment on the figures. One of Trump's lawyers, Sheri Dillon, pledged at a Jan. 11 press conference to donate any Trump Hotel profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury. The White House and Alan Garten, the general counsel for the Trump Organization, did not return calls for comment on whether any profits from foreign government payments to the hotel have been donated. Dillon's firm declined to comment."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-hotel-idUSKBN1640LE

Domestic News:

--- "U.S. Senator Tim Scott faced a quandary on Saturday in hosting his town hall: he promised to meet with his South Carolina constituents, but he wanted to avoid the kind of adversarial free-for-all so many Republicans encountered this week. Scott decided to ban placards from his North Charlestown meeting in hopes of averting the raucousness that erupted at dozens of town halls during the first congressional recess of Donald Trump's month-old presidency. The senator also required the crowd submit questions in writing ahead of time after other Republican lawmakers faced a wave of anger on issues ranging from Trump's immigration and healthcare policies to the president's ties to Russia. Despite Scott's precautions, arguments broke out and constituents told one another to shut up, though many in the audience - mostly white and over the age of 50 - said the senator remained respectful and sincere. And it never degenerated into an all-out shouting match."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protest-idUSKBN1640TN?il=0

More on town halls: https://www.apnews.com/66c83ca520064b66b1ed3f37c50d87a3/At-town-halls,-GOP-caught-between-Trump,-angry-voters

--- "U.S. President Donald Trump's administration will begin rolling back Obama-era environmental regulations in an "aggressive way" as soon as next week, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Saturday - adding he understood why some Americans want to see his agency eliminated completely. "I think there are some regulations that in the near-term need to be rolled back in a very aggressive way. And I think maybe next week you may be hearing about some of those," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told the Conservative Political Action summit in Washington DC. Pruitt added the EPA's focus on combating climate change under former President Barack Obama had cost jobs and prevented economic growth, leading many Americans to want to see the EPA eliminated completely...Pruitt was confirmed as EPA head last week. His appointment triggered an uproar among Democratic lawmakers and environmental advocates worried that he will gut the agency and re-open the doors to heavy industrial pollution. He sued the EPA more than a dozen times as his states' top attorney and has repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change. "

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-idUSKBN1640S9?il=0

--- "U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he would not attend the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner, a high-profile event that draws celebrities, politicians and journalists. "I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!", Trump wrote on Twitter. On the campaign trail and in the White House, Trump has had a strained relationship with the press, calling journalists "the enemy of the people" and frequently criticizing outlets and individual reporters whose coverage he does not like. The reporters' group said it would go ahead with its April 29 dinner despite Trump's absence. The Washington event typically draws movie stars, politicians and business leaders to hear a humorous speech by the sitting president. The dinner "has been and will continue to be a celebration of the First Amendment and the important role played by an independent news media in a healthy republic," said Jeff Mason, a Reuters White House correspondent who heads the association this year. Ronald Reagan was the last president to sit out the event after he was shot in 1981."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-press-idUSKBN1640TF?il=0

--- "U.S. Democrats elected former Labor Secretary Tom Perez as chairman on Saturday, choosing a veteran of the Obama administration to lead the daunting task of rebuilding the party and heading the opposition to Republican President Donald Trump. Members of the Democratic National Committee, the administrative and fundraising arm of the party, picked Perez on the second round of voting over U.S. Representative Keith Ellison, a liberal from Minnesota. Following one of the most crowded and competitive party leadership elections in decades, Perez faces a challenge in unifying and rejuvenating a party still reeling from the Nov. 8 loss of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He immediately made Ellison his deputy. After losing the presidency and failing to recapture majorities in Congress, party leaders are anxious to channel the growing grassroots resistance to Trump into political support for Democrats at all levels of government across the country. "We are suffering from a crisis of confidence, a crisis of relevance," Perez, a favorite of former Obama administration officials, told DNC members. He promised to lead the fight against Trump and change the DNC's culture to make it a more grassroots operation."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-democrats-idUSKBN16404L?il=0

Additional analysis: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0225/Why-does-the-race-for-DNC-chairman-matter

--- "A pickup truck driven by a man who appeared to be "highly intoxicated" plowed into a crowd of spectators watching the main Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans on Saturday, sending more than 20 people to the hospital, police said."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-orleans-parade-idUSKBN165019

[luxrestate60518]

HUFFPOST HILL - Better Angels Of Our Nature Totally Cuck House GOP

Joe Biden reminded everyone why he might be the closest thing humanity has to a walking, talking “tfw” joke. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are moving two blocks from the Obamas’ future home, though nobody is discussing their proximity to a nearby Islamic center for some reason. And a bunch of Hillary Clinton staffers have been recruited to run rapid response at the DNC, because what the opposition really needs are more black-and-white videos of Jonah Hill in a heather gray sweater solemnly telling us how much we need the individual mandate. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017:

GOP IN GISARRAY - The real loser in all of this is Rep. Blake Farenthold, who will now have that picture of himself dressed in duckling PJs re-broadcast to the world (see below!). Matt Fuller and Paige Lavender: “After a torrent of bad headlines, countless phone calls to member offices, and two tweets from President-elect Donald Trump, House Republicans dropped their plans to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics Tuesday, just minutes before the House was set to gavel in for the 115th Congress and adopt their rules package for the next two years. The amendment ― authored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) ― would have placed the independent congressional ethics office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee, changed the OCE’s name and barred the office from releasing reports to the public. In effect, it would have neutered Congress’ most aggressive watchdog. The decision to strip the Goodlatte amendment came just before noon on Tuesday as Republicans planned to begin the 115th Congress. Earlier in the day, responding to numerous news reports about Republicans gutting the OCE, Trump asked in a tweet whether Republicans really had to make the ‘weakening’ of the ethics office their first order of business, though he also didn’t necessarily come out against the idea of eventually overhauling the OCE.” [HuffPost]

Read HuffPost’s Ryan Grim on what made this whole snafu truly important: It proved that Congress will still react to public outrage.

We just want to see Sandy Levin in Snapchat Spectacles: “Several Democrats took pictures on the House floor as the chamber held a quorum call to kick off the 115th Congress — a violation of House rules that Republicans want to start punishing with a fine of up to $2,500…. Taking photos or recording video on the House floor has been a longstanding violation of House rules, but the fine is something new Republicans are proposing this year as a delayed reaction to Democrats’ June sit-in on the House floor protesting gun violence. During the sit-in, Democrats used their cell phones to record video of their speeches and chants and took photos of themselves and their colleagues after Republicans turned off the CSPAN cameras that provide live access to the floor.” [Roll Call’s Lindsey McPherson]

Watch this video of our HuffPost DC colleagues reading mean tweets.

HERE’S SOME SWEET, SWEET CUD FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES DEMOCRATS TO CHEW ON - Ben Carson’s confirmation hearing before Senate Banking is quickly becoming our second-most anticipated confirmation hearing. David Dayen: “OneWest Bank, which Donald Trump’s treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin ran from 2009 to 2015, repeatedly broke California’s foreclosure laws during that period, according to a previously undisclosed 2013 memo from top prosecutors in the state attorney general’s office. The memo obtained by The Intercept alleges that OneWest rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions. In the memo, the leaders of the state attorney general’s Consumer Law Section said they had ‘uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct’ in a yearlong investigation. In a detailed 22-page request, they identified over a thousand legal violations in the small subsection of OneWest loans they were able to examine, and they recommended that Attorney General Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the Pasadena-based bank. They even wrote up a sample legal complaint, seeking injunctive relief and millions of dollars in penalties.” [The Intercept]

BLACK PEOPLE WORRIED ABOUT JEFF SESSIONS FOR SOME REASON - But some of his best friends are ― oh, they aren’t? Lilly Workneh: “The NAACP is staging a sit-in protest at the office of U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions in Mobile, Alabama to speak out against his nomination by President-elect Donald Trump for attorney general. Several leaders of the civil rights organization have thus far participated in the protest, which kicked off Tuesday morning, including NAACP President Cornell William Brooks, and Alabama state NAACP President Benard Simelton. Brooks posted a tweet Tuesday morning declaring that he will continue to occupy the office until the protest results in either Sessions’ withdrawal or their arrest.” [HuffPost]

Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s new book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to eliot@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU ‘DANGEROUS DONALD’ SOMEHOW GIVEN JOB - Listen closely to the wind and you can hear the anguished typing of a million Bernie Bros. Philip Rucker: “The Democratic National Committee is building a ‘war room’ to battle President-elect Donald Trump, pressure the new Republican administration on a variety of policy matters and train a spotlight on Russia’s alleged cyberattacks to influence the 2016 election…. The DNC’s new communications and research operation, to be staffed by former aides to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, will be one of several efforts from across the Democratic firmament to take on Trump, including the office of Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Center for American Progress and American Bridge.” [WaPo]

TRUMP DUBAI HOTEL OPENING TO PROVIDE FRESH CONFLICT OF INTEREST - It’s been a whole five minutes since the last ethical challenge. Jon Gambrell: “The Trump International Golf Club in Dubai — the sheikhdom in the United Arab Emirates home to a futuristic skyline crowned by the world’s tallest building — is due to open in February and be managed by Trump Organization employees. It is set inside Akoya, a massive housing development of 2,600 villas and 7,000 apartments developed by Dubai-based luxury real estate DAMAC Properties. Another Trump-managed golf course is planned for another even larger DAMAC project under development further down the road. Billionaire Hussain Sajwani, who founded DAMAC Properties in 2002, met Trump some 10 years ago and the two men hit it off over their real estate experiences, said Niall McLoughlin, a senior vice president for communications and marketing at the firm…. Sajwani and his family also attended a New Year’s Eve party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, with the incoming president describing them from on stage as ‘the most beautiful people from Dubai.’” [AP]

‘JOEY NO SOCKS’ - Such good swamp-draining news today. Chris Sommerfeldt: “President-elect Donald Trump rang in the new year together with Joseph ‘Joey No Socks’ Cinque — a convicted felon with ties to notorious Gambino crime family boss John Gotti, a recently released video has revealed. Cinque can be seen in a video obtained by the Palm Beach Daily News, cheering loudly as a tuxedo-clad Trump runs through a number of campaign promises before the hundreds of guests attending the New Year’s Eve bash the President-elect threw at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Saturday. ‘The taxes are coming down, regulations are coming off, we’re going to get rid of Obamacare,’ Trump can be heard saying as an exuberant Cinque stands next to him, pumping his fists into the air.” [Daily News]

‘WHAT ABOUT CHICAGO?’ TROLLING NOW FEDERAL POLICY - “President-elect Donald Trump said Monday that if Mayor Rahm Emanuel can’t turn the tide on Chicago’s soaring murder rate, Washington may need to step in. Trump, who frequently cited Chicago’s violence during the presidential campaign, tweeted about The Windy City a day after the Chicago Police Department released year-end crime stats showing homicide numbers that dwarfed those of New York and Los Angeles combined. “Chicago murder rate is record setting - 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016. If Mayor can’t do it he must ask for Federal help!” Trump tweeted.” [Fox News]

MEGYN KELLY HEADING TO NBC NEWS - We suppose it would be too much to ask for Shep Smith to get Kelly’s spot…. Michael Calderone: “Fox News host Megyn Kelly is leaving the cable news network for NBC News, the network announced Tuesday. Kelly will take on multiple roles at NBC. She’ll host a one-hour daytime talk show airing Monday through Friday and a Sunday evening news magazine show, and will contribute on breaking news stories and NBC’s coverage of major political and special events. ‘Megyn is an exceptional journalist and news anchor, who has had an extraordinary career,’ Andrew Lack, chairman of the NBCUniversal News Group, said in a release. ‘She’s demonstrated tremendous skill and poise, and we’re lucky to have her.’ The departure is a major blow to Fox News, where Kelly hosted a top-rated 9 p.m. show and was considered a key part of the network’s future. In a Facebook post, Kelly said she was ‘incredibly enriched for the experiences’ she had in a dozen years at Fox News.” [HuffPost]

Can you even begin to imagine this neighborhood listserv: “[M]ultiple real-estate sources say [Ivanka] Trump and husband Jared Kushner will move into 2449 Tracy Pl. NW, in Kalorama. That will put the couple less than two blocks from the Obamas, who will reportedly move here post-White House.” [Washingtonian’s Marisa Kashino]

THINGS STAY THE SAME - Once again, Heath Shuler was denied his place in history. John Bresnahan and Kyle Cheney: “House Republicans overwhelmingly reelected Paul Ryan on Tuesday to another term as speaker of the House. Only one — Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — voted against him…. On the other side of the aisle, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi saw four defections in her own caucus: Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) voted for fellow Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan, and Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc.) voted for Cooper. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-New York) also voted for Tim Ryan, and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) voted for Rep. John Lewis.” [Politico]

*Insert Illuminati joke here* “Former President Bill Clinton and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will attend President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration later this month, aides to both Clintons told CNN on Tuesday. Former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush will also attend, the 43rd president’s office said in a statement Tuesday.” [CNN’S Dan Merica and Theodore Schleifer]

THE GOP’S OBAMACARE CLOWN SHOW HAS BEGUN - Congress officially took the first procedural step Tuesday to unravel the health law, and Republicans still have no clue what the final step will be. Noam Levey: “Congressional Republicans, despite pledging to quickly repeal the Affordable Care Act, are struggling with what parts of the law to roll back and how to lock up the votes they will need, particularly in the Senate, to push their ambitious plans. Settling these questions may delay any major repeal vote for months. Just as importantly, a protracted debate could force President-elect Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers to preserve parts of the healthcare law they once swore to eliminate. And this all must be resolved before they even turn to the question of how to replace the law.” [LA Times]

TRUMP CAMP PROMISES PRESS CONFERENCE FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME - He totally won’t back out again, you guys. Callum Borchers: “Donald Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told CNN on Monday that the president-elect will probably hold a news conference Jan. 11. ‘I know that’s the current plan,’ Conway said, sounding less than certain. Let’s not forget that a September event originally billed as a news conference turned out to be an infomercial for Trump’s new D.C. hotel — capped by a brief concession that President Obama was, in fact, born in the United States. And last month’s long-planned news conference was scrapped just days beforehand. So plans can change. Assuming Trump does follow through next week, his news conference drought will end at 168 days — a staggeringly long stretch for a man who once constantly held court with reporters and seemed to view the interactions as a kind of sport.” [WaPo]

CONGRESS LOVES JESUS MORE THAN AMERICA DOES - Science says so. Eliza Collins: “Lawmakers in Congress are overwhelmingly Christian, more even than the America they represent. Nine out of 10 members the new House and Senate (91%) sworn in Tuesday describe themselves as members of the Christian faith, according to a survey released by Pew Research Center Tuesday. The number of Christians in Congress is higher than the number of Americans who identify as Christian. That number has been declining in recent decades. Between the early 1970s and 90s the number hovered around 90% but by early 2000 it had dropped to around 80%. According to a spokeswoman from Pew, that number continues to decrease.” [USA Today]

BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here is a dog being shamed about its snoring.

BREAKING RICHARD NIXON NEWS - Peter Baker: “Richard M. Nixon told an aide that they should find a way to secretly ‘monkey wrench’ peace talks in Vietnam in the waning days of the 1968 campaign for fear that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency, according to newly discovered notes. In a telephone conversation with H. R. Haldeman, who would go on to become White House chief of staff, Nixon gave instructions that a friendly intermediary should keep ‘working on’ South Vietnamese leaders to persuade them not to agree to a deal before the election, according to the notes, taken by Mr. Haldeman.” [NYT]

COMFORT FOOD

- Auctioneers set over rap beats.

- Tsunamis are terrifying.

-  The worst (best?) moments of the English-to-Mandarin-to-English translation of “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”

TWITTERAMA

@mattyglesias: Web traffic is back! Vacation and family togetherness are fine, but clicks are what matters most.

@MEPFuller: Hey but remember when House Republicans were all Let’s-make-sure-the-public-has-a-chance-to-read-and-weigh-in-on-congressional-action?

lol

@jonlovett: Maybe a moratorium

A moratorium

On videos of celebrities with serious faces

Serious faces

Not saying forever

But

But just for now

For now

Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com)

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2i7BZVA