US Politics March 2019: “I can’t say I’m happy. I can’t say I’m thrilled”

there's a certain line among some of my friends "on the left" (how they'd describe themselves, i guess) that any attention paid to russiagate is wasted motion. they might allow that some of it is true, and even that some of it is worrisome, but i think they feel that it's essentially a distraction from a genuine populist progressive project. which always seems vaguely insulting to me, like they are projecting their own inability to multitask, to think along two tracks at once.

the problem is that the russia stuff, whatever you think of putin's actual impact on the US election, is inextricable from the essentially cronyism and antidemocratic values not just of trump but of the entire GOP at this point. so there's no dividing line between a "genuine populist project" and the deep corruption of those in power, because there's no hope for the former if the latter become genuinely entrenched for a generation.

/high horse

Pee tape was one paragraph in 35 pages.

Jeb! campaign sponsored HUMINT is little different from state sponsored HUMINT. The raw input is rough and preliminary. Some of the dossier has been substantiated, a lot was probably fed to Steele or his sources by Russian FSB, a mix of truth and dezinformatsiya. IIRC, some of Steele's Russian associates disappeared after the dossier became public, so the FSB was fishing for loose lips too.

Steele was/is held in high regard by US intel, which had access to the dossier months before it was leaked to news outlets and further months before its publication. They found enough to alarm them that they ramped surveillance of the Trump clan's foreign contacts in the summer of 2016, and after the election took steps to compartmentalize their investigation from future interference. At least that's what I've inferred following former NSA analyst John Schindler since then.

Is there any reason to find John Schindler a more reliable source than any other Twitter pundit? Based on the little I’ve seen from him his primary motivation is making himself seem relevant and in-the-know.

there's a certain line among some of my friends "on the left" (how they'd describe themselves, i guess) that any attention paid to russiagate is wasted motion. they might allow that some of it is true, and even that some of it is worrisome, but i think they feel that it's essentially a distraction from a genuine populist progressive project

I'm probably more or less one of those people - at least to an extent. Its partly that its difficult to actually keep on top of what is actually the case, partly a feeling that on some level there's some wishful thinking about russiagate, partly that I don't know that realistically its going to result in anything (I don't see how impeachment is possible, criminal charges seem unlikely against a sitting president, and I think he's much more easily removed via the ballot box in 18 months time).

I don't want Mueller not to do his job! But I'm not putting any focus on it, and I'm not sure that Democrats focusing on this instead of policy is either a net good, or a winning strategy. I get the point about multitasking but airtime is limited, messaging space is limited, and I think results are generally won around a single flagship issue that gains momentum, and the others follow in its wake.

Dems should be focussing not just on getting rid of Trump via the front door but what they are going to do when they get in. If Mueller somehow gets him out some other way, fine, thats Mueller's job. Otherwise the danger is that we end up with Biden in office

Democrats focusing on this instead of policy

this seems like (mostly) a straw man to me, which is sort of what i was suggesting in my allusion to multitasking. aside from some folks on the internet, is anyone with a truly significant pulpit or power actually doing this -- that is, focusing on russiagate to the exclusion of policy. the best that i can think of is that one congressman from california whose name i am forgetting at the moment.

ted lieu! that's who i was thinking of.

...you might even say that he's focusing on russigate in lieu of spending time writing policy

don't forget to tip your waiter.

Ted lieu and the pharmacists

is anyone with a truly significant pulpit or power actually doing this -- that is, focusing on russiagate to the exclusion of policy

i was thinking of CNN more than the politicians themselves! i guess people like Maddow?

She does cover a lotof stuff other than Russia, has looked at corruption and lack of response to natural disasters etc.
Russia is something she returns to frequently but not sure to what extent to the actual exclusion of other topics.

I am not dismissive. I am waiting for the legit reports.

good morning!

I know this got reported last year, but it's worth mentioning again. From the NYT story about Trump + Deutsche Bank:

n the late 1990s, Deutsche Bank, which is based in Germany, was trying to make a name for itself on Wall Street. Its investment-banking division went on a hiring binge.

The bank recruited a handful of Goldman Sachs traders to lead a push into commercial real estate. One was Justin Kennedy, the son of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

xps salacious/absurd ≠ farfetched

Pretty sure the UK’s current Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, was working at Deutsch Bank around that time.

is anyone with a truly significant pulpit or power actually doing this -- that is, focusing on russiagate to the exclusion of policy

i was thinking of CNN more than the politicians themselves! i guess people like Maddow?

― anvil, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 5:06 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah this stuff obviously gets ratings. i only tune in to Chris Hayes occasionally but it seems like he devotes at least a segment to Russiagate every night even in the absence of real news on the subject and likely his own personal lack of interest (at least judging from his Twitter feed and podcast, wherein Russia rarely comes up).

Maybe one of the problems here is people still giving televised news a single iota of their attention. The Russiagate discussion I'm exposed to is basically limited to these threads.

Hayes has made it clear the Russia stuff is for the sake of his producers, whereas Bush bottom feeders like Nicole Wallace got shows for the purpose of bipartisan outrage over Trump's vulgarity.

I feel like there's at least eight or twelve forms of covering/focusing on Russia stuff, and some are more valid than others. The Russian government tried to interfere in the elections process, which seems worth investigating, and the entire GOP has elected to deflect and make excuses and change the subject, because their guy may have been the beneficiary (or may have had people on his team who were in on it, or may have had some inkling what was going on, or may even have been in on it himself, whatever). That mass deflection and denial on the part of a major political party and all its elected officials seems legitimately scandalous and has a claim to being daily front-page news until something's resolved. It's just when it gets entangled with a mentality of this being how to "get" Trump or the GOP, by people who want life to be a multi-season procedural about hero lawyers bringing down a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top, that it becomes one of the most tedious possible conversations you could get stuck in at a bar.

Unfortunately the corporate media shapes and also reflects the widespread conviction held by the public that Donald Trump is a crass outlier, and if only Barack Obama and even George W. Bush were in command so we can forget about paying attention to the news. I know b/c this percentage comprises most of the fiftysomethings I know who watch MSNBC.

Otherwise the danger is that we end up with Biden in office

otoh that is the "postponing the inevitable" scenario

Y'all acting like you ain't heard the Zager and Evans song. We got a good 7500 years comin

Positing this as a worst case scenario is why “the left” can gfi

Second-worst.

Worst case scenario:

1. Trump reelected, Dems lose House majority

Best case scenario:

1. Asteroid collides with Earth.

hell yeah

Is Asteroid running? Which party?

Is there any reason to find John Schindler a more reliable source than any other Twitter pundit?

No. He's just angrier than most. (In the same way that Louise Mensch is more batshit than most.)

By then, though, Mr. Trump had become a reality-TV star, and he was swimming in cash from “The Apprentice.” Deutsche Bank officials also were impressed that Mr. Trump did not have much debt, according to people who reviewed his finances. Aside from his history of defaults, he was an attractive borrower.

...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html

it's hard to know when NYT reporters paraphrase, use irony, or are credulous.

srsly

I thought "The Apprentice" paid him like $50K.

he made 3 million an episode for Celebrity Apprentice

well, that's swimming in it if they gave him ones xp

The Apprentice also relaunched his brand, with tie-in merch etc.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/434686-beck-to-hannity-we-are-officially-at-the-end-of-the-country-as-we-know-it-if

i’m ok with the end of their version of america tbh

Sounds good

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/politics/state-department-faith-outlets-briefing/index.html

the "faith-based reporters" coooould do the right thing and release the transcript themselves, but something tells me they won't

I wear an inverted crucifix in public a lot now

Mostly cos of Evangelicals

http://memegenerator.net/img/instances/53538019/mostly.jpg

fun fact:

Aliens would prove to be Henn's only major acting role: By the time the film was released, she and her family had moved back to the United States, and she soon decided to pursue a career in education. She now teaches fourth grade in Northern California; occasionally, one of her students will bring in an Aliens DVD for her to sign.

cool

(off topic but who the fuck is letting a fourth grader watch Aliens? that sounds like nightmare central)

(jeet heer is doing the bloggins on TPM this week)

Partially, this is just a matter of the political thermostat adjusting itself to a change in temperature. With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, ordinary Democrats might feel like that Trump is being held in check and they can concentrate on other matters, notably the presidential primaries.

But the silencing of the Resistance might also be a result of Democratic Party leadership deliberately trying to demobilize the grassroots, lest they push for politically challenging action like impeachment. As Yglesias reports, “One veteran operative who’s deeply involved in party-aligned work on corruption issues tells me he thinks congressional leaders have deliberately demobilized the resistance because they’re so afraid of the impeachment issue.”

This demobilization follows a familiar pattern. Democrats are the party of governance, so once they win elections elected officials focus more on Washington politics than riling up the base. By contrast, Republicans tend to be on a constant war footing at all times, including even when they control all branches of government, as seen in Trump’s non-stop rallies since he won the presidency. One of the biggest mistakes of the Obama presidency was the demobilization of the grassroots movement that won him the presidency in 2008. We might be seeing history repeat itself, unless Democrats can figure out a way of keeping the fires of the Resistance going.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/farewell-to-the-resistance

xxp: Hayes did a good interview with David Wallace-Wells on his podcast.

I think that's where the outrage about Trump will come for the next century. Because he exited the Paris Accord, not because he was a narcissist criminal bore. Its certainly why I will never patronize anything associated with the Trump brand (incl Scion or American Idea hotels, and the sport of golf).

trump's currently doing a press conference with all around good guy jair bolsonaro, and of course repeatedly praised him throughout his intro.

looks like he learned a new word today, too

"reciprocity - my favorite word, reciprocity"

I am not dismissive. I am waiting for the legit reports.
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:15 AM (six hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is what greenwald for eample keeps saying, but what constitutes "legit reports" keeps to keep slipping from "some real evidence of impropriety" (which is hyperabundant, and often in public view) to, if it keeps going in the same direction, something like "audiovisual footage of trump slurping putin's ejaculate, notarized by God".

i'm not suggesting you're the same!-- just that this seemingly sensible "waiting for legit reports" mantra can be used in bad faith -- as for instance it's been by republicans day in and day out.

in re. maddow, i guess i rigorously avoid cable news so if they are nonstop russiagate still, i wasn't aware of it. that's on me.