Trump 20: Sauron Doesn't Seem So Bad After All

[GreyhoundFan]

OMG, McCain and Sessions are re-enacting Dumb and Dumber.

[sawasdee]

Wow - McCain is being quite aggressive - he's also throwing shade at Sessions, saying on the armed services committee he doesn't remember Sessions being particularly interested in Russia - he's doing really well - must have had his meds!

[GreyhoundFan]

LOL, Warner is asking (again) about the double-secret procedures Sessions keeps invoking.

[fraurosena]

Who's willing to bet that the so-called DOJ-procedures concerning stonewalling SSCI will never be delivered to them? Or, if something is, that it's a short bulleted list hastily typed-up tomorrow morning?

And by Rufus, Sessions' memory is completely fried. He can't recall anything, apparently. Especially if its Russia related. 

I loved how one of the D-senator's at the end (can't recall his name, sigh) gave him a summary of his praises for Comey just a few months ago, and then confronted him with his about-face by signing off on that memo recommending firing Comey. 

But I have to admit, Squirming Sessions was a delight to see!

 

[sawasdee]

Cornyn, Cotton, Lankford, Risch - officially GOP before everything - I think they'd let the whole question of Russian interference go, if they could, to protect the TT et al.

I'm reasonably impressed by Burr , as he is at least running a serious investigation, and asking for documents.

And I know WAY too much about US senators for a Brit living in Thailand!

ETA I'd love to see Harris as a presidential candidate one day - a mixed race, highly intelligent and articulate woman would make alt right heads expode

[GreyhoundFan]

A good analysis: "Sessions’s testimony highlights Trump’s deep lack of interest in what Russia did in 2016"

Spoiler

Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho) made a comment during the Senate Intelligence Committee’s questioning of Attorney General Jeff Sessions that has an obvious exception.

“I don’t think there’s any American,” Risch said, “who would disagree with the fact that we need to drill down to this” — that is, Russian meddling in the 2016 election — “know what happened, get it out in front of the American people and do what we can to stop it again.”

There is one American, at least, who seems generally uninterested in that need: Sessions’s boss, President Trump.

In his testimony, Sessions told Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) that he “did not recall” any meeting during which Trump expressed concern or curiosity about what Russia had been doing during the 2016 election. Sessions also testified that he himself, as the country’s and Trump’s lead law enforcement official, was never briefed on Russian interference.

Even if nothing else Sessions said on Tuesday had comported with what former FBI director James B. Comey said before the same committee last week, this did. Manchin asked Comey whether Trump had ever expressed curiosity about Russia’s attempts to swing the election; Comey said that he “[didn’t] remember any conversations with the president about the Russia election interference.”

Both before and after his election and inauguration, Trump’s attitude toward the Russia investigation has almost exclusively been that it’s a hassle, not an important step toward assuring the sanctity of American elections. (A sanctity, mind you, that has been his purported focus in establishing a commission to look at alleged voter fraud.) Instead, he has consistently disputed whether Russia was even behind the hacking — a line that Sessions mirrored in his testimony on Tuesday by stating that Russia’s role was the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies without embracing it as his own.

...

After those agencies released a report on Russian interference in January, Trump called for an investigation into those who leaked that report to the media, not for a robust investigation into the hacking. He also jokingly asked for an investigation into political opponents who had met with representatives of Russia.

On Jan. 11, less than a week after that report came out, Trump said during a news conference that although he accepted that Russia was behind politically motivated hacking (though “we also get hacked by other countries and other people”), the issue of Russia was somehow contrived.

“One of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing, that’s a ruse,” he said, apparently referring to the possibility of links between Russian actors and his campaign. “That’s a ruse. And by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that.”

He modified that somewhat in an interview with CBS’ John Dickerson in April.

Asked whether he thought that Russia tried to meddle, Trump first said, “I don’t know,” turning the discussion to alleged ties between Hillary Clinton and that nation. He later said that he was “okay” with the intelligence agencies’ determination that Russia attempted to meddle with the campaign and that “we have to find out what happened” with it.

In an interview with the Associated Press in late April, Trump suggested that perhaps Russia’s geopolitical foes from Ukraine were pushing allegations that Russia was behind the hacking.

“Why wouldn’t Podesta and Hillary Clinton allow the FBI to see the server? They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based,” he said.

The AP’s Julie Pace asked whether he meant Crowdstrike, the firm that detailed Russia’s involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee. “That’s what I heard,” Trump said. “I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that’s what I heard.” This is not true.

Speaking to NBC’s Lester Holt shortly after the firing of Comey, Trump offered his strongest support for an investigation — in the context of concerns that he was seeking to submarine it by axing the head of the FBI.

“As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly,” Trump said. He said that he was worried about lengthening the investigation by firing Comey, but that he had to “do the right thing for the American people.”

He also told Holt that the investigation wouldn’t just be about Russia.

“Look, I want to find out if there was a problem with an election having to do with Russia,” he said. “Or by the way, anybody else. Any other country.”

“If Russia or anybody else is trying to interfere with our elections,” he said later, “I think it’s a horrible thing and I want to get to the bottom of it and I want to make sure it will never ever happen.”

When not explaining the firing of Comey to a reporter on national television, though, there’s no indication that Trump’s efforts to “get to the bottom” of the hacking involved any actual interest in the investigation.

At the end of May, Trump offered his most recent opinion on the alleged interference.

...

 

[Cartmann99]

There were a couple of times when I thought Sessions was going to challenge someone to a duel for impugning his honor.

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

LOL, Warner is asking (again) about the double-secret procedures Sessions keeps invoking.

Double-secret probation!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Since we've been talking about Sessions' testimony here: "4 takeaways from Jeff Sessions’s feisty testimony to Congress about Russia"

Spoiler

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a star player in two key controversies about the Trump administration: the investigation into the Trump campaign's connections with Russia and whether the president improperly interfered in an FBI investigation.

Sessions was asked about all of this under oath Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the lead congressional committee on Russia. Here are four key takeaways:

1) Sessions denied four major allegations against him with regard to the Russia investigation

A) He denied that he purposefully left out his two  2016 meetings with Russians at his confirmation hearing. (Sessions said he was answering a question about “surrogates,” not himself specifically. But that doesn't explain why, as CNN reported, Sessions did not acknowledge the meetings in his security clearance form.)

He denied that he had a third, undisclosed private one-on-one conversation with the Russian ambassador. “I may have had an encounter” with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at a D.C. hotel in April 2016, Sessions allowed. But he said that the two never substantially talked.

C) He denied that he recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation because he wasn't forthcoming about Russia meetings. Sessions's recusal came the day after The Washington Post reported the first two meetings, but Sessions said he was already talking with lawyers about whether his Trump campaign work would force him to hand over the Russia investigation to his deputy.

D) He denied that he violated his recusal by advising the president to fire FBI Director James B. Comey.  “Supervising all the federal agencies is my responsibility, trying to get the very best people in those agencies at the top of them is my responsibility,” he said.

2) Sessions did not deny Comey's broader allegations of the president meddling

Part of that is that Sessions, obviously, was not in the room in Comey's one-on-one meetings with the president, where Comey said Trump directed him to back off the FBI's investigation into fired national security adviser Michael Flynn.

But Sessions did corroborate two key parts of Comey's testimony:

A) The details of a Feb. 14 Oval Office meeting, where Sessions and other top aides left the room and Trump talked to Comey alone. When asked by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) whether Sessions “lingered” (Comey's word) because the attorney general knew he wasn't supposed to leave the FBI director alone with the president, Sessions ducked: “What I did recall is I did depart,” Sessions said, “and Director Comey was sitting in front of the president's desk, and they were talking.”

Sessions corroborated that Comey came to him the next day and asked not to be alone with the president. Sessions said of that moment: “He was concerned about it, and his recollection of what he said to me about this concern is consistent with my recollection.”

3) Sessions appears to have contradicted himself several times

A) Sessions said he trusted Comey to do his job well and that's why he didn't get involved when Comey expressed concern about the president interfering in the FBI investigation.

But:  Sessions also said he thought Comey should be fired. And he advised the president as much, mainly for the way Comey handled the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

He said he felt okay leaving Comey alone with the president in the Oval Office.

But: When Comey brought it up the next day, Sessions said he agreed it wasn't a good idea to be alone with the president.

4) About the only thing Sessions can recall for sure is that he didn't do anything wrong

Sessions hedged almost all of his answers about whether/when he met with Russians, or why he was involved in firing Comey, or how he feels about the president's decisions, with: “I don't recall” or “I believe so” or “maybe.”

At one point, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Sessions to give details about his September meeting with the Russian ambassador in his Senate office. Sessions couldn't.

But Sessions proved he is clearly capable of giving an answer in black and white. Several times, the mild-mannered Southerner came across as downright angry when emphasizing that he did not have conversations with Russian officials about meddling in the election:

"[T] he suggestion that I participated in any collusion — that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country, which I have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie,” he said.

 

#4 is the one that just jumps out at me.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Jeff Sessions wants you to do what he wouldn’t — distinguish between his roles as senator and surrogate"

Spoiler

Attorney General Jeff Sessions's defense for failing to disclose two campaign-year meetings with a Russian diplomat comes down to a critical distinction: At times during the presidential race, he acted as a surrogate for Donald Trump. At other times, he acted as a U.S. senator.

The roles were separate, he insists, which is why a statement he made during a confirmation hearing in January — “I did not have communications with the Russians” — should not be viewed as dishonest.

“I was responding to this allegation that we had met — surrogates had been meeting with Russians on a regular basis,” Sessions said Tuesday in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. “It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context of the question and to list any conversations that I may have had with Russians in routine situations” as a senator.

Sessions spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, said essentially the same thing in March: “He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

Got that, everyone? There was a bright line between Senator Sessions and Surrogate Sessions. Surrogate Sessions “did not have communications with the Russians.” Senator Sessions did.

Why can't people see the clear division?

Maybe because Attorney General Sessions can't see it, either.

During Thursday's hearing, Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked about an April 2016 campaign event at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, where Trump delivered a foreign policy speech. The event is significant because both Sessions and Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, attended.

Multiple news outlets reported last week that former FBI director James B. Comey told committee members in a closed session that Sessions and Kislyak might have spoken at that event, too.

Sessions testified on Thursday that he does not recall whether he talked to Kislyak that day. In any case, Burr wanted to know which hat Sessions was wearing when he attended the speech.

BURR: Would you say that you were there as a United States senator or as a surrogate of the campaign for this event?

SESSION: I came there as an interested person, very anxious to see how President Trump would do in his first major foreign policy address. I believe he'd only given one major speech before. That was maybe at the Jewish AIPAC event. So, it was an interesting time for me to observe his delivery and the message he would make. That was my main purpose of being there.

What happened to the bright line? Sessions couldn't or wouldn't say whether he was acting as a surrogate or a senator. That's a problem because, according to him, it makes all the difference.

Let's apply his own standard: If Senator Sessions talked to Kislyak, then his statement in January was truthful. If Surrogate Sessions talked to Kislyak, then it was not.

It is hard for Attorney General Sessions to argue that others should distinguish between his dual roles during the campaign if he can't do the same.

He is so full of crap. He just wanted to blow a bunch of smoke.

[GreyhoundFan]

"I helped draft Clinton’s impeachment articles. The charges against Trump are more serious."

Spoiler

Bob Inglis, a Republican, represented South Carolina in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 1999 and 2005 to 2011.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) asserted last week that if the president were a Democrat, the House wouldn’t be pursing impeachment. He must know that’s not true.

If FBI Director James B. Comey had angered a President Hillary Clinton by restarting the investigation into her private email server and she had fired him, Republicans would be howling. Rightly so.

Instead, Donald Trump won the election. Comey was pursuing an investigation into Russian meddling. It angered President Trump, and he fired Comey. But rather than howling, Republicans are whimpering. The chair of the Republican National Committee has even called for a halt to all investigations of collusion with Russia. That’s a problem.

I was on the House Judiciary Committee that began the consideration of impeaching of President Bill Clinton. Armed with information from independent counsel Kenneth Starr, we were convinced the president had lied under oath. We drafted articles of impeachment, and a majority of the House concurred with our assessment. The Senate subsequently determined that there wasn’t sufficient cause to remove him from office. In retrospect, a public censure or reprimand may have been more advisable.

Regardless, Clinton was impeached for charges less serious than the ones before us now. In the current case, Comey was exploring the possibility of American involvement in the Russian plot, a treasonous offense. While it’s not time to start drafting articles of impeachment, it is time to pursue this investigation into Russian meddling in our presidential election with vigor, without friends to reward and without enemies to punish.

Confronting Trump will take more courage than it took when Republicans told President Richard Nixon that it was time for him to leave office. Not that Trump is more imposing than Nixon; Nixon was a serious president with significant accomplishments. The difference, now, is the presence of sycophantic media.

When Republicans confronted Nixon in 1974, they faced three, 30-minute, nightly news broadcasts. The networks competed, but their newscasts and the facts presented were virtually identical. Those Republicans knew that their political futures rested upon their maintenance of credibility.

Today, Fox News, talk radio, Breitbart and others fawn over Trump, Vice President Pence and the rest of the administration. They amplify the White House’s words while defying the journalistic calling to test and to probe the government’s claims. Recall, for example, how those outlets immediately affirmed Trump’s unsubstantiated morning tweets about President Barack Obama’s wiretapping of Trump Tower.

With Fox and others clogging the media landscape, Republicans’ political futures now rest on feeding the passions and proclivities of Trump’s hard-core base — the 39 percent of the electorate that likes him and responds to his code of grievance. That 39 percent is the dominant force in Republican primaries today. Cross them and you die.

That’s why Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), for example, used his time at last week’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to ask Comey questions that excused, lessened and dismissed the possible connection between the Russians and Trump. It’s not that Trump has wooed Rubio; it’s that the Florida senator is aware of the power of the 39 percent.

Of course, the 39 percent will ultimately kill the Republican Party unless we can turn them around. A dead GOP would deprive a generation of Americans of the free-enterprise and individual-accountability solutions that thoughtful people such as Rubio would like to offer. Furthermore, a hostile foreign power has struck at the heart of our constitutional republic. As Comey said with passion last week, “If any Americans were part of helping the Russians do that to us, that is a very big deal.” Republicans must be prepared to follow those facts all the way to the president, his family and his campaign, if that’s where the facts lead. Fox News alerts play it down, the RNC says drop it, and the 39 percent shrugs, but we need real courage from real Republicans and a real investigation.

Interesting perspective.

[sawasdee]

I truly don't understand this. Sessions lied under oath in his confirmation hearings.  'I made a mistake'  does not get you out of this. It is perjury. Which is a felony. And which nearly got Clinton impeached.

So why is he still the senior law enforcement official of the United States?

[GreyhoundFan]

10 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I truly don't understand this. Sessions lied under oath in his confirmation hearings.  'I made a mistake'  does not get you out of this. It is perjury. Which is a felony. And which nearly got Clinton impeached.

So why is he still the senior law enforcement official of the United States?

He has the "magic R" after his name.

 

Jennifer Rubin wasn't impressed by Sessions: "Jeff Sessions wilts on the hot seat"

Spoiler

Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon. Senators came ready to tear into him for untruthful confirmation hearing testimony about Russian conflicts; his post-recusal decision to wade back into the Russia investigation and 2016 campaign issues in the context of the firing of former FBI director James B. Comey; his knowledge of pressure tactics wielded by the president on Comey; and his awareness of any taping system in the White House.

The contrast with Comey was striking. Sessions, grayer and older, looked nervous and shrunken in his seat, growing defensive at times. He weakly complained to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) about her questioning. He sharply objected: “I’m not able to be rushed this fast, it makes me nervous.” Indeed, while Comey was relaxed, confident and expansive, Sessions was evasive and skittish. He repeatedly refused to answer questions, not invoking executive privilege but saying it was Justice Department “policy” not to talk about conversations with the president. Democrats repeatedly challenged him, accusing him of “stonewalling.” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) slammed him: “You are impeding this investigation.” Heinrich told Sessions there’s no “appropriateness” standard that alleviates him from the need to testify under oath fully and completely. Heinrich flat out accused Sessions of “obstructing” the investigation.

Making a far stronger appearance at the hearing than he did during Comey’s appearance, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grilled Sessions on his lack of interest in Russian espionage and chastised him for a lack of transparency. He got Sessions to acknowledge that he did not discuss substantive matters (e.g., Syria) with the Russian ambassador, leaving open the question as to what they were chatting about in multiple encounters. McCain also pointed out that while on the Armed Services Committee Sessions was not particularly focused on Russia.

Sessions at times would relate the contents of conversations with other high government officials (e.g., claiming he and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein agreed Comey should go) but refused to say whether he discussed Russia in conjunction with Comey’s firing. Sessions is unlikely to get away with such gamesmanship with the special counsel.

Aside from looking like he had something to hide, Sessions did himself and the president few favors. After decrying the insinuation he had an additional (third) meeting with the Russians, he allowed he couldn’t remember if he met with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel. He conceded that after a meeting with President Trump, Comey told Sessions he was uncomfortable being cornered alone with Trump. (Comey suggested Sessions responded with little more than a shrug, but never did anything about this.)

Sessions was exceptionally weak in explaining how his recusal — which covered the Russia investigation and anything coming from the 2016 campaign — allowed him to insert himself into Comey’s firing. Whether you accept that the reason was Comey’s handling of the Clinton emails (as stated in Rosenstein’s letter) or the Russia investigation (as Trump later confessed), Sessions did not abide by the plain wording of the recusal. The reason seems to be that Sessions was convinced he still had to perform all his duties so, reasoning backwards, the recusal couldn’t prevent him from involvement in the Comey firing. This is illogical and just wrong. The recusal was supposed to impose limits on that part of his job he could NOT do; he did not abide by that restriction according to his own, albeit muddled, telling of soliciting the memo from Rosenstein used to fire Comey.

Another problematic bit of testimony came when Sessions said that it would never be appropriate for the president to discuss a specific case with a Cabinet or other high official. According to Comey, Comey’s notes and the media remarks of Donald Trump Jr. that is exactly what Trump did in raising Michael Flynn’s situation with Comey alone in the Oval Office.

Sessions was never able to explain why the reasons stated in Rosenstein’s memo — usurpation of the prosecutorial function and raising the Clinton emails in the campaign — could possibly be the reasons for firing Comey. In the past, Trump and Sessions had praised Comey for precisely this conduct. Unfortunately, Sessions only strengthened the impression that the real reason for firing Comey was concealed until Trump spilled the beans in an interview with Lester Holt. In short, nothing Sessions said undercut the argument that the president fired his chief nemesis in the Russia scandal, in the ultimate act of obstruction.

Even more disturbing, Sessions seemed to confirm that neither he nor the president ever showed any interest in the underlying issue — Russia’s attack on our democratic system and interference with our elections. He doesn’t recall ever getting briefed on it, or Trump ever mentioning it. A more vivid portrait of absolute dereliction of duty would be hard to duplicate.

In sum, Sessions was remarkably unconvincing, defensive and downright snippy. If he is this shaken when questioned by former colleagues imagine how he may wilt under Robert S. Mueller III’s grilling.

 

[sawasdee]

23 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A more vivid portrait of absolute dereliction of duty would be hard to duplicate.

Absolutely! He is lying, or incompetent, or both. I think the evidence points to the last.

In fact, the major takeaway I got from this hearing was that he claimed to be unaware of every major investigation ongoing at the Justice Department or FBI. Too busy putting dope smokers in private jails?

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes, he is: "Trump is a weapon of mass distraction"

Spoiler

Monday was the first anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando that left 49 dead. Saturday will be the second anniversary of the church shooting in Charleston, S.C., where nine were murdered at Bible study.

In between these two somber remembrances, House Republicans will be commemorating the occasion in their own way: They will begin work relaxing restrictions on firearm silencers — thereby making it easier for shooters to shoot without being noticed.

Classy.

To this injury, the legislators add insult with the bill’s name: a provision of the “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act” called the “Hearing Protection Act” — as if it were subsidizing earplugs. That’s like calling legislation that expands the availability of machine guns the “Carpal Tunnel Protection Act” because it spares would-be shooters the repetitive motion of trigger pulling.

With all the hullabaloo over Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Russia scandal and President Trump’s latest tweets, few are likely to notice when the bill gets a hearing Wednesday before a House natural resources subcommittee. And that’s the point. Trump, as candidate and president, has been a weapon of mass distraction.

Admittedly, nobody would wish on himself the kind of distractions Trump has been generating lately. The inquiries into his and his aides’ Russia ties and his firing of FBI Director James B. Comey could ultimately end his presidency. But though these are consequential and necessary matters — and though there’s no way to avoid attention going to the many other bizarre happenings in Trump world, such as the televised hosannas showered on him at Monday’s Cabinet meeting — these inevitably distract from serious matters that, in any normal time, would dominate headlines.

As the Comey craze and Sessions obsession entertain the nation, Senate Republican leaders have used the diversion to advance Trumpcare legislation in the shadows.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) invoked “Rule XIV,” a procedure that allows legislation to skip committees and go directly to the floor. McConnell is hoping to rush the health-care bill to a vote before the July 4 recess, and GOP senators working on the Senate legislation aren’t even sharing the specifics with their Republican colleagues.

The news outlet Axios this week reported that Senate Republicans don’t plan to divulge the details of their legislation publicly. “We aren’t stupid,” one senior GOP aide told Axios. No, they aren’t. And their subterfuge is working. Unnoticed by most, Senate Republicans believe they have cobbled together the 50 votes necessary to repeal Obamacare.

On the very day that Comey testified before the Senate, the House passed legislation largely repealing the Dodd-Frank financial reforms implemented after the 2008 crash. The bill would, among other things, remove the requirement that retirement advisers put their customers’ interests before their own. The House on Tuesday afternoon took up another controversial matter under cover of the Sessions distraction: As the attorney general testified in the Senate, the House voted along party lines to require a Social Security number for people to get Obamacare benefits. It is meant to block illegal immigrants from accessing health-care benefits. Opponents say it would also deny medical care for many newborn babies who are citizens.

The Comey contretemps has also obscured splits between mainstream and conservative Republicans that have made a budget resolution unlikely. House Republicans are moving on with appropriations legislation for 2018 without a budget. This split could jeopardize tax reform and increase the likelihood of a government shutdown or default later this year.

It’s difficult to focus on budget nuances, though, when Trump has turned the White House into a circus. In addition to the Comey and Sessions performances, there is also the clown show: At this week’s Cabinet meeting, nearly all of Trump’s Cabinet members offered praise for their boss. There were, in all, 46 occurrences of “thank you,” 32 of “great,” 15 of “honor” and seven of “privilege” as they extolled Trump and his virtues: “Just the greatest privilege of my life. . . . My hat’s off to you. . . . What an incredible honor . . . I can’t thank you enough for the privileges you’ve given me. . . . Thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you’ve given us to serve your agenda.”

As we gape in astonishment at a president receiving tributes from his coterie — like a strongman from his junta — Americans might find it difficult to concentrate on an equally astonishing thing happening this week: that House “hearing protection” bill, which would end nearly a century of strict regulation of silencers and thwart the new gunfire-detection technology cities use to fight crime.

It’s no small irony that those trying to make silencers more available are relying on noise — the din of Trump’s antics and the clatter of the Russia probes — so that most Americans don’t hear what’s happening until it’s too late.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm wondering this myself: "Is Trump making America mentally ill?"

Spoiler

In one of Walker Percy’s brilliant novels, “The Second Coming,” protagonist Will Barrett keeps falling down for no apparent reason. He also suffers trances during which he contemplates existential questions.

Barrett comes to mind in the era of Donald Trump.

I’m not falling down on the golf course yet, as Barrett did, but I confess to a feeling of lightheadedness coupled with slight nausea. It makes perfect sense that Barrett finds salvation in a young woman recently released from an insane asylum.

When many of those around you seem to be suffering from some sort of group mania — believing what isn’t true and defending what isn’t defensible — then the officially “insane” offer some strange solace. At least there’s a rational explanation for their disorder.

Today, about a third of the nation’s population seems to be suffering from a reality discernment malfunction. Have they been ingesting mushrooms plucked from bull dung? Drinking water spiked with credulity-enhancing chemicals?

Thus, when President Trump speaks in his fourth-grade, monosyllabic, syntax-challenged verbiage, they hear lyrical lucidity. When he brags that he has accomplished more than any other president, save for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his starry-eyed minions nod their approval. Exactly no major legislation has been passed by Congress since Trump took office.

As Trump himself said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they’d still love him.

This is the definition of reciprocal madness, which seems to have spread to the highest levels, as witnessed Monday in the strangest Cabinet meeting in American history. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said it was a “blessing” to serve the president. Each secretary matched his example in what became an epic, circular kiss-up, praising Trump’s leadership (do you suppose the last lemming thanked the first?) and expressing his or her gratitude.

“It’s an honor to be able to serve you,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“I am privileged to be here,” said Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta. “Deeply honored.”

“What an incredible honor it is to lead the Department of Health and Human Services at this pivotal time under your leadership,” said HHS Secretary Tom Price. “I can’t thank you enough for the privileges you’ve given me and the leadership that you’ve shown.”

The only way to process such tortured effusion is to remember James B. Comey. You either profess loyalty or you go back to being a member of the privileged class so abhorred by the very folks Trump tempted at the ballot box.

Most reserved in his remarks was Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who praised only the men and women of the Defense Department, not Trump. A scholar, thinker, combat veteran and leader, Mattis knows full well what evil lurks in absolute power. The blessing is that there’s at least one among the crowing crowd who puts country first and worships no mortal man.

But what to make of the rest of these Americans who seem unburdened by such concerns? Or this president, who still can do much harm? More than two dozen top psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental-health experts hope to provide some answers with a book due out this fall — “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

They don’t diagnose Trump, which ethically they can’t do without examining the patient. They do, however, discuss his symptoms, which lead them to conclude that Trump is a “complex, if dangerously mad, man.” They also propose that his mental illness is affecting the nation’s mental health as well.

These experts will likely learn what many journalists have discovered: Only the already convinced will read the book, and the rest will remain convinced of their certitude. The trouble is that when one is daily immersed in clouds of distraction, it’s difficult to recall what “normal” looks like.

Before long, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a movement of Americans dressed in all-white and smoking cigarettes, mutely watching their former friends and family go about life as though everything were the same. Barrett doubtless would find solace in such company, refugees from the Asylum of the United States.

Let’s just hope we’re not watching through concertina wire.

 

[sawasdee]

I'm engaged. I read Wapo, NYT, The Guardian - and FJ.  I read the comments, to try and find someone who has an intelligent defence of the Orange Mussolini. I watch the BBC and CNN.

There are no rational defences posted. Most are rehashes of "but Hillary" or "but Obama" - with usually a rather nasty racist take on his name. Or "losers can't take it they lost!".

Do they care about the US? How cloistered do they have to be to not realise that the TT is ruining the US reputation worldwide, let alone what he and his cohorts are doing at home? How can they ignore the enormous money grab going on in AHCA? To be followed by a tax bill which will increase inequity even more? Do they not realise how much tRump's children will PERSONALLY  benefit from his proposed changes in the inheritance tax? Do they not remember he said ' I will be the first person to make money from a presidential run'?

And now, as president, he's working for one thing only - the tRump family.  Qatar wouldn't lend me money 9 years ago? Isolate them politically - even if that endangers US troops in the country. Saudi is the biggest backer of Wahabbism - the incentiviser of terrorism - no problem - I'm building hotels there. NATO has helped maintain peace in Europe for seven decades? But they get really nitpicky about my golf courses, so sod them.

He's undermining the Constitution with his flagrant disregard of the rules on nepotism and emoluments. He doesn't accept the three layers of Constitutional rule. He doesn't respect the 1st amendment.

I'm in a state of shock. I'm numbed. I watched that shitfest of lying and obfuscation today and wasn't even surprised.

He's doing so many unacceptable things he's inoculating us against rage. We can't live in a constant state of anger. So we react less, as other bills slip by - legalising silencers, polluting the environment, taking away Wall St. protections from consumers - we're too tired to protest as we should.

He's the most dangerous man of the last 70 years.

 Sessions finished it for me. I have no words left to say how furiously angry I am, and how impotent I feel.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[sawasdee]

I'm not an American. I don't even live in Europe. But what he does affects all of us, and we have no recourse.

That's why I feel so impotent.

We have admired and respected the US for decades - and it's all being thrown away. I don't know when we will be able to trust your system again.

[Cartmann99]

29 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

Sessions finished it for me. I have no words left to say how furiously angry I am, and how impotent I feel.

Sorry for the rant.

I understand your bewilderment, confusion, and anger. It's a natural reaction for those of us who strive to live in the reality-based world.

Honestly, it no longer matters what promises Trump breaks or what insane policies he supports. As long as whatever he does or says makes his critics angry, his base will go along with it. He could kidnap, torture, and eat people on live television, and his fans would just shrug and say they deserved it for some reason, like they did when Gianforte assaulted that newspaper reporter. His core base of support cannot be reasoned with, because they didn't reason themselves into being Trump supporters in the first place. 

Sorry to be so dark and morbid, but unfortunately, this is where the United States is right now. 

[sawasdee]

21 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

His core base of support cannot be reasoned with, because they didn't reason themselves into being Trump supporters in the first place. 

And that is what is so terrifying - that there are people out there who have no critical thinking skills AT ALL - and they can - as in this instance - govern the direction of the whole world. A minority of a minority in the US - about 25% - has elected a president whose behaviour will impact everyone, every where. Undermining NATO destabilises Europe, his crazy ideas on trade are scaring Asia, his proposed cuts to aid will impact Africa and South America, and his pronouncements and actions on climate change will affect everyone.

25% of the population of the US did this - maybe it's time for compulsory voting, like Australia. That might also help with the problems of people being denied their vote.

[Childless]

That 25% are the ones who are scared.  The uneducated and white who are scared they are being marginalized by growing minority groups and an ever changing economy.  Instead of learning new skills that make them valuable and accepting that everyone has equal worth in society, they choose to try and go back to a time that will never exist again.  They are fighting a losing battle that will only leave them further behind.  It's a waste of energy, time, and money, but frightened people are not rational people.  I'm not sure you can ever reach them either.  I would rather spend time reaching out to the younger generation, the future of this country, and try to encourage them to engage in our political process.  They will be the solution to this nightmare, not the petrified 25% who ushered in Trump and his hell scape.

[Zola]

And that 25% didn't even win the popular vote. Hmmm, they're a lot like that group of Americans that still romanticize the role of the Confederacy in the American Civil War. Many of them are of that group. That says a lot right there. And no, I don't believe they can be reached. They prove it daily - and proudly. But...

If there's anything I've learned about America in the 44 years I've lived here, it's that things may get bad and look bleak, but someone (either singular or plural) will come along eventually to set things right again. And it's not just America, it's basic human nature. 

I believe in us, I believe in the US, and I believe in the future.

Now it's just a matter of how bad it will get, how long before relief comes, and how effective that relief can be over the bad we're dealing with now.

I believe in the future. Must repeat. Believe in the future.

[apple1]

@sawasdee Exactly. No one can remain in a constant state of anger.

I feel like sometimes I stay TOO engaged in all the news surrounding this administration - but I feel like I HAVE to know what is happening. But sometimes, for one's own mental and emotional health, it is necessary to disengage for a time (and let someone else follow the events).

 

I have a hard time disengaging, however.

[usedbicycle]

I'm glad y'all are calling this out. On another thread about the Staddon-Neely wedding, people got pissed at me for saying how awful some parts of NC are in terms of Trump fanatics and and all-around-horrible Baptist churches. Yes I know the State has Asheville, Charlotte and other progressive places, but I've lived in several southern states and there's something particularly virulent about churches in NC. 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

10 hours ago, sawasdee said:

snip

25% of the population of the US did this - maybe it's time for compulsory voting, like Australia. That might also help with the problems of people being denied their vote.

I agree with you, but can guarantee compulsory voting will never happen here. Too many Americans don't want the government telling them that they "have" to do something. I can't imagine not voting in every single election, large or small. Because of a sudden illness, I had to miss a primary a few years ago, I was so upset that I didn't vote. Of course, by the time the general election came around, I was happily in line to cast a ballot.

The other issue is that, thanks to Repugs, voting can be cumbersome, especially on lower-income people and minorities. For example, in my state, Virginia, you have to have meet one of certain categories to vote early. Polls are open from 6AM until 7PM, but if you work all day, and don't have a car, you might not be able to make it to your polling location. It doesn't help that elections here are always on a Tuesday. If, like many other countries, there were more options, including weekend voting, it might help drive turnout. Of course, it will not happen. Repugs almost always benefit when turnout is low, so they have a vested interest in keeping the counts down. Their voter suppression efforts have paid off for them.

[GreyhoundFan]

Another entry in the "you couldn't make this shit up" sweepstakes: "Trump calls House health bill that he celebrated in the Rose Garden ‘mean’"

Spoiler

President Trump told Republican senators Tuesday that the House GOP health-care bill was “mean” and he expects the Senate to “improve” the legislation considerably, according to several Republicans familiar with the gathering.

Trump’s comments, during a White House lunch with a group of 15 GOP senators from across the ideological spectrum, signaled that he may be willing to embrace a less-aggressive revision of the Affordable Care Act than Republicans have previously promised.

The meeting came as Senate Republicans were struggling to build support for their health-care rewrite among conservatives who are concerned that the legislation is drifting too far to the left.

Trump’s labeling of the House bill as “mean” was a significant shift of tone that followed months of private and public negotiations, during which he called the bill “great” and urged GOP lawmakers to vote for it. Following the House vote, Trump hosted an event in the Rose Garden to celebrate its passage.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), who attended the lunch, said Trump talked about “making sure that we have a bill that protects people with preexisting conditions” and how to design a tax credit for purchasing insurance that works for lower-income and elderly people in particular.

“I think he realizes, you know, our bill is going to move, probably, from where the House was and he seems fine with that,” Thune said. “He talked about making sure that we have a bill that protects people with preexisting conditions.”

Following the meeting, several top Republicans sought to temper expectations that leaders could produce a final health care draft by the end of the week, as had previously been expected. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) told reporters that Trump was positive and the talks were productive, but he laughed when asked if he expected a bill would be complete by Friday.

“I don’t think so,” Hatch said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also declined to say whether the Senate would hold a vote on the bill before the July 4 recess, as some in Senate leadership have aspired to do.

“Our goal here is to move forward quickly,” McConnell told reporters. “The status quo is unsustainable. We all know something has to be done.”

Senate Republicans have struggled in recent weeks to reach consensus over how to cover more low-income people and protect people with preexisting conditions without driving up the cost of their health-care bill. Leaders have signaled that they are willing to expand tax credits and provide a longer transition for states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

But those changes risk alienating conservatives who are under intense pressure from voters and outside groups to demand a more forceful repeal of the law known as Obamacare. A growing number of conservatives, including Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have been calling on Senate leaders to maintain House-passed reforms, including a waiver that could allow insurers to charge more for people with preexisting conditions. They argue that waiving those requirements would allow states to offer cheap, bare-bones plans and drive down the cost of premiums across the individual insurance markets.

Conservatives are also frustrated that Senate leaders are mulling plans to make tax credits for buying insurance more generous for low-income people. Leaders have openly discussed a plan to peg the value of the tax credit to the age and income of a person, a change from the House plan to adjust the credits based on age but not income.

A group of moderates, led by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) are also demanding that the legislation include $45 billion over 10 years to help address opioid addiction. Capito told reporters Tuesday that the opioid fund is among her top priorities.

“It’s absolutely critical to my state, and we’ve got huge problems,” Capito said. “Obviously Sen. Portman’s been very forceful here — we’ve got the same issues, if not worse.”

Moderates, including Capito, have held great sway in the discussions as Senate leaders worked to secure the 50 votes necessary to pass a health-care bill. McConnell can afford to lose only two GOP votes on the bill.

Their push to extend coverage comes as the Office of the Actuary for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued an analysis that predicted the House bill would cause nearly 13 million more Americans to become uninsured over the next decade. The forecast is bright news for the GOP following a more dire prediction three weeks ago from the Congressional Budget Office that 23 million more Americans would be uninsured as a result of the legislation.

The study estimates that the House bill would also reduce federal spending by $328 billion over 10 years, compared with $119 billion in the CBO analysis.

Well, one thing is for sure, Agent Orange should be able to identify something that is "mean", since he lives it daily.