RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The 'Russia Hoax' Is a Hoax Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52537"><span class="small">Adam Serwer, The Atlantic</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 December 2019 13:45

Serwer writes: "If you are following mainstream news outlets, you know that in 2016, Donald Trump benefited from a Russian hacking and disinformation campaign designed to help him get elected, even as he sought permission from the Russian government to build a hotel in Moscow."

A demonstrator holds up a sign of Vladimir Putin during an anti-Trump march. (photo: Eduardo Alvarez/Getty)
A demonstrator holds up a sign of Vladimir Putin during an anti-Trump march. (photo: Eduardo Alvarez/Getty)


The 'Russia Hoax' Is a Hoax

By Adam Serwer, The Atlantic

12 December 19


A report by the Department of Justice inspector general debunks the claims that the investigation into political interference by the Kremlin was a left-wing conspiracy to depose the president.

f you are following mainstream news outlets, you know that in 2016, Donald Trump benefited from a Russian hacking and disinformation campaign designed to help him get elected, even as he sought permission from the Russian government to build a hotel in Moscow. You know that he deflected blame from Russia for that campaign, even as he sought to benefit from it politically. You know that shortly after the election, Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office that he didn’t mind their efforts on his behalf, inviting further interference. And you know that while those acts may not have amounted to criminal conspiracy, the president’s insistence that there was “no collusion” flies in the face of established facts.

If you are ensconced in the pro-Trump-propaganda universe of Fox News and its spawn, you know something different. You know that the Russia investigation was a “hoax” developed by the “deep state” and the media, an attempt by a fifth column within the FBI to engage in a “coup,” a conspiracy, a frame job, “nothing less than the attempted overthrow of the U.S. government.” Any evidence of wrongdoing by the president, in this universe, has been manufactured by Trump’s shadowy and powerful enemies—George Soros, liberals in the FBI, Barack Obama.

The belief that Trump is the victim of a vast and ongoing conspiracy is a crucial element of the president’s enduring appeal to his supporters. If the allegations against the president are all completely false, then his supporters can continue to back him with a clear conscience, because anything and everything negative they hear about the president must be false. The consistency of that message is more important than the actual details, which frequently end up contradicting complex explanations for the president’s innocence that are often incongruous with each other, such as the insistence that Robert Mueller’s investigation was a “total exoneration” of the president, but also “total bullshit.”

The Department of Justice inspector general’s probe into the origins of the Russia investigation, which was released Monday, found no evidence that any of the Trump conspiracy theories surrounding the origin of the investigation are true. The investigation was not launched on Obama’s orders, it was not an effort by pro–Hillary Clinton FBI agents to prevent Trump from getting elected, and it was not predicated on the existence of opposition research gathered by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The president’s defenders have taken to referring to the entire investigation as “the Russia hoax,” insisting that the entire investigation was an effort by “persons within the FBI and Barack Obama’s Justice Department” who “worked improperly to help elect Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.” But the IG report shows that the “Russia hoax” defense is itself a hoax, and a highly successful one, aimed at reassuring Trump supporters who might otherwise be troubled by the president’s behavior.

The inconsistencies and contradictions of the “Russia hoax” narrative appear not to trouble the president’s supporters. Rather, as George Orwell wrote in 1944, “For quite long periods, at any rate, people can remain undisturbed by obvious lies, either because they simply forget what is said from day to day or because they are under such a constant propaganda bombardment that they become anaesthetized to the whole business.” The numbness to every new Trump revelation, no matter how shocking, is in part a product of the president’s success in fatiguing anyone who might be interested in what the facts are.

The IG report knocked down the various claims that Trump and his allies have made, one by one. The report confirmed that the Russia investigation originated, as has been previously reported, with the Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian diplomat about Russia possessing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, which the IG determined “was sufficient to predicate the investigation.” The widespread conservative belief that the investigation began because of the dubious claims in the Steele dossier was false. “Steele’s reports played no role” in the opening of the Russia investigation, the report found, because FBI officials were not “aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later.”

Republicans’ claim that the investigation began because the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain permission to surveil the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page was false. The IG also “did not find any records” that Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Clinton, was an FBI informant sent to entrap him. The former FBI agent Peter Strzok and the former FBI attorney Lisa Page, who shared anti-Trump sentiments over text and have become key villains in the Trumpist narrative of a “coup,” never had the power to do what has been attributed to them. The IG report notes that Page “did not play a role in the decision to open” the Russia investigation, and that Strzok was “was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.”

The IG report also determined that “the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened [the Russia investigation] to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity.” Moreover, the IG found “no evidence” that “political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” to investigate Trump advisers with ties to Russia.

There is, in short, no “deep state” anti-Trump conspiracy, no network of perfidious liberals in the FBI seeking to take down Trump. There is, however, voluminous evidence of reprehensible behavior by the president, first taking advantage of a foreign attack on the 2016 election for personal and political profit, seeking to obstruct the investigation into that interference, and then falsely concocting an elaborate conspiracy theory to avoid accountability for his actions.

Nevertheless, there are important systemic problems with the FBI and the way that the U.S. government approves invasive surveillance techniques on American citizens. The report notes that while the FBI had a sufficient factual predicate for opening the investigation, that is because the FBI and the Department of Justice must meet a “low threshold” for justifying such an investigation. In addition, while the IG report found no evidence that “political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page,” the IG did determine that the Page FISA application was “inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation,” which misled the court as to the credibility of the FBI’s evidence when seeking authority to surveil Page.

Liberals may be tempted to dismiss such findings as unimportant. But federal investigations are incredibly invasive, and having a stricter standard for the circumstances under which an investigation can be opened would help ensure that this authority is not abused; the Clinton Foundation investigation began—and this is no joke—with an anti-Hillary book paid for by the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. If the FBI is making errors in seeking permission to surveil current or former advisers to a presidential campaign, the most politically sensitive kind of investigation, it suggests that there are many more flawed applications to be found in operations where the investigations are not nearly so delicate. The process for seeking permission to spy on American citizens suspected of being foreign agents should be more adversarial than it is, if only to keep the government honest.

Republicans however, do not seem at all interested in the actual legal and policy concerns the report raises. Rather, they are following the lead of the president and his attorney general, William Barr, in mischaracterizing the report’s findings. “This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow—and a lot of people were in on it,” Trump declared, while Barr insisted, in a more lawyerly fashion, “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

Both of these statements contradict the report itself, which found no political bias behind the opening of the Russia investigation. Barr’s statement is a matter of opinion, which expresses his monarchical belief that Trump was above the law even before he became president. But whether Barr personally feels the evidence was sufficient to open an investigation, the IG determined that by FBI and DOJ standards, it was.

Trumpists will now pin their hopes on Barr’s handpicked investigator, U.S. Attorney John Durham, to provide some shred of evidence for Trump’s “deep state” conspiracy. After investigations failed to produce justification for an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, whose actions helped put Trump in office prior to Trump firing him over the Russia investigation, or his deputy, Andrew McCabe, whose disclosures to the media harmed Clinton rather than Trump, and following two IG reports that found no evidence that the Russia investigation was the product of political bias, Durham will be under a tremendous amount of pressure from Barr to indict one of the president’s chosen enemies, if only to have a scapegoat to feed the right-wing propaganda machine and deter federal law enforcement from ever looking into criminal activity by the president or his allies again.

So the “Russia hoax” hoax continues, abetted by the sheer volume of conservative commentators and commentary capable of ignoring the text of the document and the weight of evidence, in favor of expressing obsequious loyalty to the president. By yelling falsehoods loudly enough, they hope to exhaust anyone with the ambition to determine the truth of the matter. And it might be working.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Six Ways Football Groomed Us for President Trump. Still Going to Watch the Superbowl? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52536"><span class="small">Robert Lipsyte, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 December 2019 13:45

Lipsyte writes: "Helping to spread America's primary disease, racism, is Trump 101, but the NFL got there first."

Washington Redskins fans watch an NFL football game. (photo: NBC Sports)
Washington Redskins fans watch an NFL football game. (photo: NBC Sports)


The Six Ways Football Groomed Us for President Trump. Still Going to Watch the Superbowl?

By Robert Lipsyte, TomDispatch

12 December 19

 


[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Let me just remind you that, as 2019 ends, for a donation of $100 ($125 if you live outside the U.S.), you can still get a signed, personalized copy of the superb new book by Michael Klare (who wrote the previous piece at this site), All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. Of it, Bill McKibben -- and who better, given the subject? -- says, “Powerful... If you want to understand the next decade, I fear you better read this book.” Just go to our donation page and check out the details. And while you’re there, note that SportsWorld: An American Dreamland, the striking recent work of today’s author and TomDispatch’s long-time jock culture correspondent Robert Lipsyte, is still similarly available. Many thanks to all of you who contribute in any way whatsoever to this site! It means the world to me! Tom]

I was wondering recently: If I’m not watching it anymore, how about you? When, out of curiosity, I went looking in the modern fashion, via Google, I found that there had indeed been increasing numbers of people like me back in 2016 and 2017, but no longer. The numbers of watchers stopped dropping as 2018 ended and have been on the rise ever since. In case you hadn’t guessed so far -- and why should you have? -- what I’m no longer watching is football.

Okay, maybe one reason I'm not watching is that the two National Football League teams in my hometown, the Giants and the Jets, are awful this year, but that’s hardly all of it. I think -- though until now I hadn’t really thought much about it -- that the flood of news on the brain-scrambling nature of America’s top sport finally got to me, as did the brain-scrambling nature of you-know-who when it came to taking a knee and the national anthem. And yet the NFL’s TV audience this year is once again significantly on the rise at a moment when even hit primetime TV shows like This Is Us (which I do watch) are bleeding viewers.

I mean, I can remember attending a pro football game with my dad in snow flurries when I was no more than six or seven years old. In the summer, our family rooted for the Brooklyn Dodgers, since my dad had been a Brooklyn boy, and in the winter, the Giants. That’s just the way life was and, for me, that’s kind of the way it remained, when it came to football, until fairly recently. This may be the first year, in fact, when I don’t even watch the Super Bowl, a thought that came to mind as I read TomDispatch jock culture correspondent (and author most recently of SportsWorld: An American Dreamland) Robert Lipsyte’s scathing piece today on the Trumpian nature of football in 2019.

I just wonder though: Why in the world is that audience coming back?

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch



ecause everything is so Trumpian these days, there’s less air or space for the only other mass entertainment that promotes tribalism and toxic masculinity while keeping violence in vogue: football.

In the age of The Donald, it’s hard to remember that football was once the nation’s greatest television reality show. Because real people actually got really hurt in real time, you could be sure it wasn’t fake news. Now, football is just another runner-up to President Trump, whose policies actually get people killed.

And yet football is still here, in plain sight, waiting to resume its cultural dominance once Trump is gone.

To avoid any further erosion of its base, it is cosmetically modifying itself at every level with “reforms” focused on the image of increased safety. From small rural high schools to the Fifth Avenue offices of the National Football League (NFL), plans are being generated to protect America’s most popular and prosperous sport from the two things that could destroy it -- the players’ mortal fear of having their brains scrambled and the fans’ moral fear of awakening to their complicity in such a process.

The players, mostly black and conditioned to believe football is their best ticket out of modern Jim Crow, have not yet fully awakened. But fans, despite being conditioned to believe that supporting your local team is little short of a civic responsibility, have more options. They are, after all, mostly white and not as likely to need to sacrifice their health for their short-term livelihood. There’s hope that, in the end, those fans will come to understand, for example, that watching the Super Bowl is casting a vote for the values that have helped bring us the show most dangerous to our survival as a civilization, the Trump administration.

Football’s Playbook

As a voter’s guide, here are the six ways in which football groomed us for Trumpball and is still trying to keep us in its grasp:

1. Inflame Racial Divisions: Helping to spread America’s primary disease, racism, is Trump 101, but the NFL got there first. Seventy per cent of its players are African-American. At the start of this season, only four head coaches and two general managers of the 32 teams were men of color. Only two owners were not white men: the Jacksonville Jaguars' Pakistani-American Shahid Khan and the Buffalo Bills' Korean-American Kim Pegula (a woman).

So, who would have thought that the same year -- this one! -- would mark not only the 100th anniversary of the NFL but the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans on the soil of what became the United States of America? Somehow, neither milestone has been celebrated all that much this year -- and never together. In his indispensable book on race and sports, Forty Million Dollar Slaves, former New York Times columnist William Rhoden maintains that, by cutting off black athletes from their history and communities, the sports industry has managed to control them. “The power relationship that had been established on the plantation,” he wrote, “has not changed even if the circumstances around it have.”

To make sure the NFL owners would stand firm against players kneeling during the national anthem, President Trump called Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones to say, according to a sworn deposition given by Jones and reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

No wonder that these days, whole teams or many members of them refuse invitations to the White House.

2. Crush Dissent: The CliffsNotes saga of former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick is pretty straightforward -- a star (though not a superstar) refuses to stand for the pre-game national anthem as a protest against racism, particularly of the white-police variety. His act is spun as disrespect to the nation and its flag. Thereafter, no team will hire him because he would be a “distraction.” That was three years ago and, ever since, Kaepernick has kept himself in playing shape, becoming a martyr to some, a loser to others, and one of the genuine heroes of this generation of racial activists. He has collected millions of dollars (and given away more than a million of them) from both a Nike campaign and a settlement with the NFL in return for withdrawing a collusion case he had brought against the league. More recently, a league-sanctioned open workout, hastily organized for him to audition for a new quarterback job, collapsed amid bad intentions and confusion.

Perhaps most interesting is the striking lack of support Kaepernick has received from many of his fellow players. Are they against his demonstration or fearful of antagonizing their owners and endangering their own jobs (which only last, on average, slightly more than three years)? After all, at a 2017 rally, Trump told those same owners (a striking number of them donors of his) that they should respond to protesting players by saying, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He’s fired. He’s fired!”

He really didn’t have to tell them. They understood that holding the line against the Kaepernicks of this world means keeping the progressive barbarians at bay, something already baked into the game. The canceling of the Other, of anyone not on the team (so to speak), be they rivals, uncooperative college faculty, or most women who aren’t moms, cheerleaders, or girlfriends who understand that the team comes first, remains the norm.

3. Normalize Brutality: Football was born in brutality. In 1909, the year 26 football players died, former Confederate colonel John Mosby reportedly called the sport a "barbarous amusement" that "develops the brute dormant in man's nature and puts the player on a level with... a polar bear." This from a cavalry raider once known as the “Gray Ghost.”

Although the game has since been made safer, it’s always been a contest battled out man-to-man and based on the violent aggrandizement of territory. Attempts to create rules to avoid, say, crippling blocks and tackles have generally been met by howls of anguish from chickenhawk fans who cried out: don’t sissify football.

Particularly in the warfare between offensive and defensive lines, football is a game of domination by bullies. The most notorious of contemporary bullies (and yes, he’s a Trump supporter) is Richie Incognito. As an all-star offensive lineman at Nebraska, he picked fights that probably would have ended his career at most other universities. But he was such a good player that Nebraska sent him to the Menninger Clinic for anger-management counseling. This, however, proved no cure for the six-foot-three-inch, 300-pounder and Incognito eventually was kicked off the team. While some pro teams refused to draft him on the basis of “character” issues, the St. Louis Rams did so in 2005. He played well (and with bad character). He was routinely picked for all-pro teams, while, in 2009, being voted the “dirtiest player in the league.” In 2013, he bullied a fellow 300-pound Dolphin, Jonathan Martin, off the team and eventually out of football.

Not surprisingly, the NFL is as practiced when it comes to reaching out to bad boys as the present administration is. (Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, one of three SEALs tried for war crimes, whom President Trump intervened repeatedly to protect, has been referred to as the Richie Incognito of the SEALS.) Incognito, who continues to pile up a police record, played this season with the Oakland Raiders while Martin, a Stanford graduate, still struggles with his depression.

4. Sustain Inequality: Recent legislation in California allowing college athletes to share in any profits from the sale of their images has been both hailed and attacked as revolutionary. It’s the beginning of a fair new deal in the saga of the “unpaid professionals” and the end of amateur sports as we knew it. There was always a very good reason for keeping jocks on an unguaranteed dole called “scholarships”: control. But an even better reason was keeping all the profits for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the colleges, the apparel companies, and the retailers.

The crushing economic inequality in college athletics (especially in football and basketball, the so-called revenue sports) has been justified by the “free” education that “student-athletes” -- a term concocted by former NCAA Executive Director Walter Byers -- receive, if indeed they go to class and graduate. If indeed they even have time.

The ripping-off of college athletes has been carefully ignored by legislators, universities, and fans. Later in life, Byers would aptly call the NCAA "a nationwide money-laundering scheme," but this phenomenon runs through all of sports. The 32 NFL teams collect more than $13 billion in revenue annually and protect themselves with elaborate “salary caps,” so that no team can start spending too wildly on players or launch the football equivalent of an arms race. Of course, by the time you turn pro, the least you can make is $495,000 (this year’s rookie minimum) with millions more for first-round draft picks.

As Colonel Mosby pointed out so long ago, the real problem still begins in college. As he put it, "It is notorious that football teams are largely composed of professional mercenaries who are hired to advertise colleges. Gate money is the valuable consideration." 

5. Apply the Lie: In the deadly tradition forged by Big Tobacco and climate deniers, the NFL relentlessly insisted that there was no relation between brain trauma and the game, even as middle-aged former players slipped into early dementia, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease. For years, the league was dismissive and stonewalled on the issue. In all of this, the media and a cult of faux masculinity were accomplices. Those head-banging hits you’ve been wincing at on TV? Just dingers a real man should be able to shake off.

It took a young New York Times reporter, Alan Schwarz, a young pathologist, Bennett Omalu, and the brothers Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru-Wada, with the help of a PBS Frontline documentary, “League of Denial,” to finally get the story out in full. And it would prove a particularly hard sell for fans invested in the game. They generally didn’t want to give up their viewing pleasures, however guilty, and tried to justify them by claiming that the players were well aware of the risks and well compensated for them, even if the settlements crafted by NFL lawyers have never seemed adequate to the damage done.

As Americans learned that the damage was usually caused by thousands of hits to the head -- from pee-wee football through high school and college -- youth football participation started to drop. Even successful pros began to say that they wouldn’t allow their sons to play football.

More troubling yet to the NFL have been decisions by stars like Andrew Luck, a 29-year-old quarterback who quit while he could still walk and think.

6. Control the Media: Covering football from high school to the pros can be a walk in the park or a slog through hell, depending on whether the reporter is considered part of the booster squad or a “ripper,” out to score his or her own points in opposition to the team’s brand image. Admittedly, even in this heightened moment for sports journalists, few reporters have been physically attacked by coaches or athletes, although intimidation, micro-aggressions, and attempts at shunning have always been common. Lately, real-time access to key players has been harder to come by and has led to more speculative coverage, which, in turn, often results in adversarial writing, sometimes in defiance of media employers.

Not surprisingly, then, leading a recent “stick to sports” campaign have been football’s media partners, not its players or fans. Anything that seems remotely political, even if posted on private social-media platforms, has been subject to being shut down. Jemele Hill, an ESPN star now writing for the Atlantic, may be the most striking example so far of a good journalist ousted in this way, but many have also been lost to devastating lay-offs at ESPN, Deadspin, and other sports sites where real coverage has been giving way to cheaper, uncontroversial puff pieces.

Ultimately, in such a climate, political figures, too, may feel ever more comfortable expressing themselves aggressively to journalists on critical coverage. Here, as David French described it, is a possible harbinger of such a future:

“In 2017, the congressional candidate Greg Gianforte ‘body-slammed’ the Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs after Jacobs tried to ask him questions about health-care policy. It was a cowardly, criminal act. Not long after, Trump praised him. At a campaign rally, the president of the United States said of Gianforte, ‘Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of -- he’s my guy.’”

“My guy,” by the way, went on to win his Montana seat in the House of Representatives.

For those who remain unconvinced that an unqualified vote for football is a vote for Trump, the Jock Culture Department of TomDispatch suggests you follow Richie Incognito to the Menninger Clinic. For those who promise to at least remain open on such subjects, however, we’re prepared to look the other way while you watch the Super Bowl in a SportsWorld made ever more toxic by the racism, sexism, classism, and violence encouraged, or perhaps more accurately, marketed by Donald Trump. And while you’re watching the festivities (and the head-banging to follow), hang on to the possibility that this will be the president’s last Super Bowl as national head coach.



Robert Lipsyte, a TomDispatch regular, was a sports and city columnist for the New York Times. He is the author, among other works, of SportsWorld: An American Dreamland.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's LGBTQ 'Pride' Merchandise Is a Hypocritical Insult to Queer Americans Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52535"><span class="small">Michelangelo Signorile, NBC News</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 December 2019 13:45

Signorile writes: "For three years, President Donald Trump has rolled back LGBTQ equality in unprecedented ways. This makes his ongoing and preposterous attempts to portray his White House as a supporter of LGBTQ rights even more infuriating."

LGBT flags in front of the White House on June 11, 2017. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty)
LGBT flags in front of the White House on June 11, 2017. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty)


ALSO SEE: Senate Confirms Trump Judicial Nominee Who Cried
When Confronted With Anti-Gay Record

Trump's LGBTQ 'Pride' Merchandise Is a Hypocritical Insult to Queer Americans

By Michelangelo Signorile, NBC News

12 December 19


The truth must ring out louder than any rainbow-colored Trump campaign T-shirt.

or three years, President Donald Trump has rolled back LGBTQ equality in unprecedented ways. This makes his ongoing and preposterous attempts to portray his White House as a supporter of LGBTQ rights even more infuriating. Case in point, his campaign's LGBTQ pride merchandise, including rainbow-themed “Make America Great Again” hats and T-shirts. According to the Donald Trump website, the pride hat is currently sold out.

But who is buying this gear? The Trump rainbow apparel is not only monumentally hypocritical and insulting; it’s also part of a long list of attempts to grab media attention that momentarily makes Trump appear as an ally of LGBTQ people — at least to those who don’t read past the headlines.

This is a cynical attempt to court heterosexual voters who might be turned off by blatant bigotry. And, ironically, it’s a testament to the great progress on LGBTQ rights over the past two decades: An administration that bows to anti-LGBTQ extremists in its base nonetheless fears being perceived as harsh, especially heading into an election year.

This was true when Trump sent a tweet supporting LGBTQ pride last June, and when his ambassador to Germany last February announced a supposedly new campaign to fight the criminalization of homosexuality around the world (which turned out to simply be the continuation of an existing Obama-era policy). But these pronouncements, like the selling of Pride merchandise, paper over the fact that Trump has been among the most hostile presidents in history on LGBTQ rights.

In the past, blatant anti-LGBTQ policies — and a refusal to even acknowledge queer people — were more politically and culturally acceptable. For years, they could even help candidates running for national office. Now, as support for equality has dramatically shifted, a large portion of the electorate is repelled by anti-LGBTQ attitudes in a way similar to how they perceive the overt shunning of other minorities.

And that explains why the superficial embrace of LGBTQ people by Trump isn’t actually targeted to LGBTQ voters. Trump and his campaign advisers know that the vast majority of LGBTQ people, after witnessing Trump ask the Supreme Court to allow discrimination against them in employment, and after seeing Trump move to strip anti-discrimination protections from them under the Affordable Care Act, aren’t going to vote for him. Indeed, according to exit polls only 14 percent of LGBTQ people cast a vote for him in 2016.

The larger groups that Trump’s campaign is worried about include much-coveted straight suburban voters, many of whom support LGBTQ rights and have moved away from Trump and the GOP. The campaign is hoping these voters aren’t paying much attention to the deep rollbacks on civil rights — which often get short shrift given how much chaos emanates from this administration — while Trump makes empty gestures of support for LGBTQ people and other minorities.

Trump’s aides are also often shameless in the claims they make, attempting to gloss over the horrendous damage he’s done.

“President Trump has never considered LGBT Americans second-class citizens and has opposed discrimination of any kind against them,” White House spokesman Judd Deere recently told The New York Times, even as Trump’s executive orders and other actions have been aimed at allowing discrimination in the name of “religious freedom.”

Top presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway even claimed in 2018 that Trump came into office “approving of the gay marriage.” In fact, Trump courted religious conservatives throughout his 2016 campaign, stating emphatically that he was opposed to marriage equality at the federal level and promising to place judges on the Supreme Court who might overturn it. While he has given a variety of interviews on the topic since then — saying he is “great” with Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s same-sex marriage, for example — his record can by no means be construed as proactively in favor of same-sex marriage or other rights.

Indeed, the best way to judge Trump’s record is by looking at his biggest supporters. The religious right hasn’t reacted at all to Trump’s attempt to appear LGBTQ-friendly, because anti-LGBTQ leaders know that Trump has no desire to actually further equality. This is all just for show.

I was present at the 2016 GOP convention in Cleveland. Right after Trump’s acceptance speech vowing to protect the “LGBTQ community,” I interviewed Tony Perkins, president of the anti-LGBTQ Family Research Council. He, too, was confident Trump would push his agenda, no matter statements like the one he had just made from the stage.

“[Trump] has said that these issues should be dealt with at the state level and he has not been for the government forcing it on people,” Perkins told me of LGBT rights. And that’s something Trump has certainly followed through on: Dismantling federal protections for LGBTQ people while paying lip service to equality in the abstract.

That’s why LGBTQ activists, as well as those in the media, must be vigilant. The horrendous truth must ring out louder than any rainbow-colored Trump campaign T-shirt.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump's Got a Problem With Women's Mouths Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50436"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Medium</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 December 2019 12:54

Valenti writes: "Donald Trump really likes talking about women's mouths - specifically, how offensive he finds it when any words come out of them."

Sen. Warren. (photo: Getty)
Sen. Warren. (photo: Getty)


Trump's Got a Problem With Women's Mouths

By Jessica Valenti, Medium

12 December 19


No matter how much the president curses and sneers, a woman like Elizabeth Warren who speaks her mind is the one who’s profane

onald Trump really likes talking about women’s mouths — specifically, how offensive he finds it when any words come out of them. At a rally in Pennsylvania this week, the president attacked Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying that she had “became strong” after his “Pocahontas” smear, “but then she opened that fresh mouth of hers.”

It’s not the first time Trump has opined on Warren’s mouth: In 2016, he called her a “big mouth” at a press conference in North Dakota; a month later, he tweeted that she had a “nasty mouth.”

Of course, Warren is just one among dozens of women Trump has maligned over the years; the president has a particular distaste for outspoken women or women who criticize him. He’s called Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Meghan Markle “nasty.” (Not to mention he’s also made comments about women’s periods, lied about a female critic having a sex tape, and mocked a woman who accused him of sexual misconduct as being too ugly to sexually assault.)

Earlier this year, he even made fun of teenage activist Greta Thunberg after she gave an impassioned speech about climate change, sarcastically tweeting that “she seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”

What’s particularly ironic about his obsession with women’s “mouthiness,” though, is that Trump has one of the dirtiest mouths in U.S. politics. Apparently it’s fine for the president to curse and sneer, but a woman who speaks her mind is the one who’s profane.

Normally I’d be irritated about Trump’s attack against Warren’s outspokenness, but something else happened this week that cheered me. One of Trump’s “mouthy” female adversaries, Greta Thunberg, was named Time’s Person of the Year — an honor the president has long been obsessed with.

It turns out women’s fresh mouths get things done.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: FBI Properly, Legally Investigated 2016 Trump Campaign. The Rest Is Noise and Spin. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51723"><span class="small">Barbara McQuade, USA TODAY</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 December 2019 11:54

McQuade writes: "Low-level misconduct had no bearing on the opening of the FBI investigation or its findings. Barr is trying to muddle that message. Don't fall for it."

The Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, debunked President Trump's accusations that the FBI conspired to overthrow his presidency. (photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick)
The Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, debunked President Trump's accusations that the FBI conspired to overthrow his presidency. (photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick)


FBI Properly, Legally Investigated 2016 Trump Campaign. The Rest Is Noise and Spin.

By Barbara McQuade, USA TODAY

12 December 19


Low-level misconduct had no bearing on the opening of the FBI investigation or its findings. Barr is trying to muddle that message. Don't fall for it.

he most telling aspect of Attorney General William Barr’s public statements is what he doesn’t say.

On Monday, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General released its much anticipated report into whether the Trump campaign was working with Russia to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. IG Michael Horowitz found that the investigation was properly opened under the law and the FBI’s guidelines, and that there was no evidence of that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions.

Despite this finding, Barr stated, “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

Note what Barr did not say. He did not say that launching the investigation was illegal. Nor did he say the FBI violated any internal policy. Instead, he relied on his own opinion that the evidence was insufficient to justify the investigation. His hindsight does not make the investigation illegal or improper.

'Crossfire Hurricane' met FBI standards

FBI investigations are governed by Attorney General guidelines and a manual called the Domestic Investigations Operations Guide, known by its acronym, “the DIOG.” Both the guidelines and the DIOG require that before an investigation may be opened, there must be an “authorized purpose” to obtain information about crimes or threats to the national security or to collect foreign intelligence. In addition, FBI investigations require an adequate factual “predication,” that is, an "articulable" factual basis that reasonably indicates an activity constituting a crime or a threat to national security.

Horowitz found that the investigation known as “Crossfire Hurricane” met this standard. The FBI opened the investigation in July 2016 after receiving information from a “friendly foreign government” that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “had suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist” with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. At that time, the FBI also had information that Russia may have been connected to the WikiLeaks disclosure of emails that had occurred earlier that month. The FBI was also aware of Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election.

Based on this information, an FBI team conducted an initial analysis of links between Russia and members of the Trump campaign. This analysis prompted the FBI to open individual cases on Papadopoulos and three others connected to the Trump campaign — chairman Paul Manafort and advisers Carter Page and Michael Flynn. Horowitz found that the initiation of the investigations was properly authorized.

The conclusion that the predication standard was satisfied comes as no surprise. The standard is low, and deliberately so. While this standard prevents the FBI from opening an investigation on a whim or for an improper personal or political purpose, it allows probes to begin on even the slightest indication of a threat to public safety or national security. A higher standard would handcuff the FBI from completing its mission to protect and defend the American people.

FBI duty to investigate security risks

When predication indicates a threat to public safety or national security, the FBI has a duty to investigate. That duty applies even when the stakes are high, and the target is a powerful person in government. For the FBI to ignore such a threat would be to shirk its responsibilities, and instead leave our nation at risk.

Barr’s statement ignored other facts as well. He stated that “the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.” This statement overlooks facts contained in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report documenting contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. He neglected to mention Trump’s negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow, the June 2016 meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Manafort’s meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik in August 2016 to share polling data on battleground states. Barr’s omissions tend to make him sound more like a defense attorney for Trump than the Attorney General of the United States.

The IG investigation did find misconduct by the FBI in seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a serious concern, but one that had no impact on the opening of the case or the results of the Mueller investigation. The FBI obtained four FISA warrants targeting Carter Page, the first in October 2016, and three renewals. Horowitz found that “FBI personnel fell far short” of the requirement to ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are “scrupulously accurate.” As a result, decision makers lacked full information, and the applications made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than it was.

FBI Director Christopher Wray has vowed that this abuse of the FISA process will result in changes at the FBI, which is laudable, but it is important to recognize that it had no bearing on the investigation. The first FISA warrant was obtained in October, and therefore could not have influenced the case opening three months earlier in July. In addition, the remedy for false information in a warrant is to delete the offending language, and if the remaining information is insufficient to establish probable cause, to suppress the evidence obtained with that warrant.

The bottom line is that these FISA problems do not exonerate the target or taint the rest of the information uncovered in the investigation. Barr’s focus on them muddles misconduct by lower level employees with decisions by FBI and DOJ leaders, whom he has previously suggested have a “Praetorian guard mentality” that anyone with a different political opinion is an “enemy of the state.”

Barr has also said that he is not concerned about his legacy because “everyone dies.” Perhaps one who cared more about his reputation would make more effort to tell the whole truth.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Next > End >>

Page 660 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN