RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Donald Trump, Sexual Predator Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51778"><span class="small">Lloyd Green, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 October 2019 10:41

Green writes: "Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy parachute into the netherworld of weaponized libido that is the life of the 45th president. Salaciousness abounds."

Donald Trump with Miss USA delegates in 2000. (photo: Steve Azzara/Corbis/Getty Images)
Donald Trump with Miss USA delegates in 2000. (photo: Steve Azzara/Corbis/Getty Images)


Donald Trump, Sexual Predator

By Lloyd Green, Guardian UK

27 October 19


Barry Levine, formerly of the National Enquirer, and Monique el-Faizy are well placed to write this alarming book

arry Levine and Monique El-Faizy parachute into the netherworld of weaponized libido that is the life of the 45th president. Salaciousness abounds. Their book is lurid, informative and aptly subtitled “Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator”.

Fortunately for us, the authors bring unique expertise. Levine is a former executive editor of the National Enquirer. According to the investigative reporter Ronan Farrow, Trump’s secrets were stashed in a safe in Levine’s office until they were shredded in December 2016 – a claim the Enquirer denies. El-Faizy is the author of God and Country, which examined the rise of the evangelical community in the aftermath of George W Bush’s 2004 re-election.

All the President’s Women is breezy but heavy. Unlike Stormy Daniels’ 2018 bestseller Full Disclosure, none of it is entertaining. Not surprisingly, the White House declined multiple opportunities to rebut the book’s contentions.

It takes us from Trump’s days growing up in Queens to his arrival in the Oval Office and chronicles everything in between, mommy and daughter issues included. Much has been heard before, some is aired for the first time, little is pleasant, plenty is disturbing.

The book rests upon firsthand interviews, transcripts and prior reports. It also contains a detailed appendix that lays out its sources. Said differently, if you can actually believe Barack Obama is a crypto-Muslim born in Kenya to a cocaine-addled Martian, then opting in to at least 50% of All the President’s Women should be a no-brainer.

Court records abound. It is not just the authors’ word or a birth certificate. Think Summer Zervos, Michael Cohen and “Individual-1” for starters.

Despite all Trump’s protestations and legal maneuvers, the lawsuit commenced in New York by Zervos, a one-time Apprentice contestant who was allegedly manhandled and defamed, proceeds apace. Since the case began in early 2017, the defendant has never submitted a sworn statement denying the substance of the complaint.

In March 2019, a New York appeals court gave its greenlight for Zervos’s action to continue. Earlier this month the trial court set a 6 December discovery cut-off, with the possibility of Trump being deposed.

Practically speaking, don’t bet on it. Like Bill Clinton before him, Trump will probably continue to assert that a sitting president cannot be sued, an argument rejected by the supreme court when Clinton squared off against Paula Jones. It is also possible Trump will claim that being deposed while being impeached is more than one man should be forced to bear. There, he may have a point.

More ominously for Trump, on Thursday Zervos filed a motion with the court that outlined a series of sexual assaults in late 2007 allegedly perpetrated by Trump. For good measure, the results of a polygraph are included. According to Zervos, in one instance Trump “began kissing” her “very aggressively”, then pawed at her. Zervos also attached portions of Trump’s calendar. Barron Trump, the president’s son with Melania, was less than two years old at the time.

On top of that, there is Cohen’s guilty plea that essentially paints the president AKA “Individual-1” as an unindicted co-conspirator in a campaign finance scheme to keep Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model (“Woman-1”), and Daniels, a porn star (“Woman-2”), out of the headlines. The plan worked well enough. The two women were neither seen nor heard until the presidential race was over.

Among the book’s more questionable vignettes is a story of a younger Trump, nearly 40 years ago, frequenting a sex club maintained by the mob and pursuing a threesome with a porn star and a young girl. The authors have failed to find the two women or a possible black-and-white tape.

Beyond that, the building in question has since been demolished and the mob kingpin behind the club was purportedly whacked in 1986. The sole eyewitness is named John Tino, and his rap sheet includes convictions for larceny, fraud and forgery.

Yet Trump’s forays into construction and casinos, his nexus to organized crime and his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein together confer a patina of plausibility on a tale that would otherwise be close to nonexistent. The authors stand by Tino.

The book also raises the possibility Trump may have left in his wake more than a few terminated pregnancies. David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer prize winner and a Trump biographer, is quoted as saying that several “name-brand” women had pregnancies and abortions courtesy of Trump. Johnston adds: “I don’t have the medical records to prove it, but they’ve told girlfriends about it.” No names are listed.

All the President’s Women also examines evangelical support for Trump and Trump’s religious life. One source is quoted as saying evangelical backing stems from Trump’s judicial selections. Another attributes it to the loss of “Protestant privilege in America”.

On that score, Pew Research recently announced: “In US, Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace”. Just over two in five Americans are Protestants and evangelical Protestantism is now the dominant branch. At the same time, the religiously unaffiliated comprise more than a quarter of the country.

Potentially more telling is that Paula White, a preacher of the prosperity gospel, has emerged as Trump’s personal pastor. White’s take on immigration and Scripture: Jesus “did live in Egypt for three and a half years. But it was not illegal. If He had broken the law then He would have been sinful and He would not have been our Messiah.” Good to know.

White is a resident of Trump Park Avenue, a condominium in Manhattan’s Lenox Hill neighborhood. In 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, formerly of The Apprentice and the White House, asked if White’s position as Trump’s spiritual adviser “had ever been missionary”? Levine and El-Faizy don’t go there. Instead, they look to White as a character witness.

It is unlikely All the President’s Women will change many, if any, minds about Trump. He was never viewed by anyone as a boy scout. Each half of the US sees what it wants. If Trump is brought down, it won’t be by his zipper.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Republican Impeachment Panic Sets In Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 October 2019 08:33

Rich writes: "When Richard Nixon finally was forced to concede in August 1974, that a 1972 White House tape implicated him in the Watergate cover-up, the conservative columnist George F. Will called the revelation a 'smoking howitzer.' Nixon was gone four days later."

House Republicans gather to speak at a press conference on impeachment organized by Representative Matt Gaetz on Capitol Hill on October 23, 2019. (photo: Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images)
House Republicans gather to speak at a press conference on impeachment organized by Representative Matt Gaetz on Capitol Hill on October 23, 2019. (photo: Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images)


Republican Impeachment Panic Sets In

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

27 October 19


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, diplomat William Taylor’s “smoking gun” Ukraine testimony, Trump’s fading GOP support on impeachment, and the Democratic Party’s Hail Mary attempts to hold off Warren and Sanders.

ongressional testimony this week by William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, laid out an explicit quid pro quo linking U.S. military aid for Ukraine to a Biden investigation, and detailing the rogue “diplomacy” driven by Rudy Giuliani. Is this the “smoking gun” Democrats have been waiting for?

When Richard Nixon finally was forced to concede in August 1974, that a 1972 White House tape implicated him in the Watergate cover-up, the conservative columnist George F. Will called the revelation a “smoking howitzer.” Nixon was gone four days later. Some have been recycling Will’s locution this week, with good reason given the damning evidence provided by Taylor and so many others (including Trump himself) that the president of the United States committed an unambiguous criminal act. But Trump isn’t going anywhere so fast.

Yet over the past week there have been repeated signs that he and his party are more panicked than ever. The first indication of desperation was the White House trashing of Taylor, a Vietnam combat veteran with a bipartisan 30-year-plus career in public service, as a “radical unelected bureaucrat” and “human scum” despite the fact that it was Trump’s own secretary of State and Ukraine shakedown co-conspirator, Mike Pompeo, who put Taylor in his current diplomatic post. Then came the farcical and failed effort of a congressional flash mob, approved by the president, to physically disrupt the impeachment inquiry on the spurious grounds that Republicans are being shut out of the proceedings. (Forty-eight GOP representatives are permitted to attend the hearings on impeachment.) These protesting clowns, among them the racist Iowa congressman Steve King, not only violated national security by bringing cell phones into the room but thought it was a hilarious idea to order in pizza to further dramatize their ostensibly serious act of civil disobedience.

Another sign of Trump panic was his reversal of his decision to host the G7 at his own Miami hotel — a very rare about-face, prompted by complaining GOP congressmen fearful of 2020 blowback in their own reelection campaigns. You’ll notice, too, that Trump seems to be retreating from his claim to be a “lynching” victim. This may have something to do with an unexpected editorial that ran Wednesday in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal — a newspaper that, unlike the Times and the Washington Post, has not been subjected to the White House’s new “fake news” ban. In stark contrast to Trump lackey Lindsey Graham’s defense, the paper’s editorial page condemned Trump for using “self-indulgent” and “reckless” and “indefensible” language that exacerbates the “political trouble” he’s in.

Now comes the pièce de résistance, reported yesterday: In response to congressional Republicans’ complaints that the White House has no coordinated impeachment battle plan, Mick Mulvaney has been tasked with “working on getting a messaging team together.” To put Mick (“Who do you believe, me or your own ears?”) Mulvaney in charge of White House messaging can only mean that either that Trump can no longer recruit new political operatives to join him in his bunker or that Baghdad Bob was not available.

As new polling puts national support for an impeachment inquiry at an all-time high, Republicans who had previously been staunch Trump defenders are showing signs of indecision. Are we seeing cracks in the wall of Trump’s GOP support?

At the moment, polling averages show that Americans support impeachment by a plurality of roughly 49 to 43 percent. For a little perspective, the authoritative Harris Poll of the Nixon era found a similar 49 to 41 percent split in May of 1974. By a July 17, 1974, Harris survey, the pro-impeachment percentage had risen to 53 percent, with only 34 percent opposed. Even so, just ten days later, only six Republicans joined the House Judiciary Committee majority when it voted the first article of impeachment (for obstruction) by a margin of 27 to 11. It took another two weeks for Nixon’s GOP support in the Capitol to collapse, prompting his August 9 resignation before the House conducted a full impeachment vote.

In the case of Trump, there’s no reason to expect that Senate Republicans will turn on him incrementally. Mitt Romney and retiring House members like Francis Rooney of Florida aside, they’ll mostly remain loyal — or in the case of Susan Collins and her Vichy ilk, in hiding — until the dam breaks. As to what might break the dam, it’s worth recalling the experience of H.R. Haldeman, the Nixon chief of staff who served 18 months in prison for Watergate crimes. In his 1978 memoir, The Ends of Power, he wrote: “The cover-up collapsed because it was doomed from the start. Morally and legally it was the wrong thing to do — so it should have failed. Tactically, too many people knew too much. Too many foolish risks were taken. Too little judgement was used at every stage to evaluate the potential risk vs. the gains. And when the crunch came, too many people decided to save their own skins at whatever cost to the president or anyone else.” Just one small but conspicuous sign of such a crunch: It’s not out of a newfound press-shyness that Giuliani has vanished from cable news and is lawyering up.

Another factor will be the public impeachment hearings that Republicans have been demanding. The concept of Be Careful for What You Wish For will be ratified once again when those hearings do arrive in as soon as three weeks.

A pair of articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post described Democratic donors and party officials wishing for a mainstream liberal latecomer to enter the primary and hold off a Warren or Sanders nomination. Is this standard campaign fretting, or a sign of a changing of the guard in the party?

For months now — well before the start of debate season — nearly every Democrat I know has repeated some version of the same lament, “I can’t believe it but Trump is going to win again.” (Imagine the life of a therapist in Manhattan right now!) Such fatalism may be more intrinsic to identifying as a Democrat than any single ideological conviction. Still, it’s a little early for mass suicide pacts. While the Democratic Party is capable of screwing up anything (must there really be at least nine candidates onstage in November’s debate?), the fact remains that no one has voted yet and we are still more than a year away from Election Day.

What’s most disturbing about the Hail Mary stratagems being tossed out to the press by jittery professional Democrats is the notion that Hillary Clinton might be the “moderate liberal” savior to enter the race if Joe Biden vacates that slot. (Nor has she firmly shut the door on such a scenario.) Just because Clinton has lately become more free-spirited and jokey in her Twitter account does not mean that she’ll be anything other than the cautious, focus-group-tested candidate she’s been throughout her political career, or that she’ll galvanize those parts of the Democratic base (young voters, people of color) that failed to turn out in sufficient numbers last time. In 2016, Trump won in part because of his cynical exploitation of a widespread, and bipartisan, rejection of both the Bush and Clinton Establishments. If there’s a groundswell anywhere beyond Wall Street for their return, it’s a better-kept secret than his tax returns.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Donald Trump and William Barr Will Burn Everything Down Rather Than Surrender Power Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 October 2019 12:57

Pierce writes: "The news that Attorney General William Barr's worldwide snipe hunt has now been transformed from an administrative nuisance to a criminal investigation is as unsurprising as it is terrifying."

William Barr. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
William Barr. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters)


Donald Trump and William Barr Will Burn Everything Down Rather Than Surrender Power

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

26 October 19


A new investigation signals this administration* will happily wreak havoc all over the government.

he news that Attorney General William Barr's worldwide snipe hunt has now been transformed from an administrative nuisance to a criminal investigation is as unsurprising as it is terrifying. After all, Barr's entire career in government has been marked by a fealty to executive power and by an apparently irresistible drive to keep Republican presidents from ever bearing the consequences of their offenses against the Constitution. It was Barr who advised President George H.W. Bush to murder the Iran-Contra investigations by pardoning everyone except Shoeless Joe Jackson on Bush's way out the door.

Now, though, Barr is on active duty, spanning the globe to find corroboration of El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago's most dearly held conspiracy theories. (Italy told him to get stuffed.) And anyone who expected Barr to behave differently than he has—sabotaging the release of the Mueller Report and, now, concocting a cover story out of pure paranoid moonshine—should not be allowed to carry their own money or cut their own meat.

(By the way, I'm not inclined to give John Durham, who is the putative head of this investigation, the benefit of the doubt, either, no matter how many of his pals from the DOJ appear on TV to pump Durham's bona fides. We heard the same things about William Barr.)

But the perils in this latest twist are profound. It's become plain this week that the political defense of an indefensible presidency* is going to wreak havoc all through the government. We have had the Juicebox Meatheads crashing a closed committee hearing. We have had Senator Lindsey Graham, that reliable White House castrato, proposing a meaningless Senate resolution condemning the House investigation, and now this latest abomination. We already have branches of government at war with each other and, to be honest, that was sort of the idea behind the Constitution's structure in the first place.

But it's also clear now that the Republican Senate is going to war with the Democratic House. It also become clear that the internecine war in the House is going to be savage and bloody. This new investigation exists only to provide the Republican side of all those conflicts with a weapon that can be deployed at any time. This administration* is willing to burn everything down rather than surrender its power. This president* is willing to bring all the temples down on his own head. I don't think anybody really understands how terrible the coming reckoning will be.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Latest Attempt to Block Impeachment Inquiry Testimonies Faces a Key Court Battle Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51471"><span class="small">Anya van Wagtendonk, Vox</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 October 2019 12:57

Van Wagtendonk writes: "The Trump administration has attempted to block a key witness from testifying in the impeachment inquiry by claiming 'constitutional immunity.'"

Representative Adam Schiff. (photo: Erin Schaff/NYT)
Representative Adam Schiff. (photo: Erin Schaff/NYT)


Trump's Latest Attempt to Block Impeachment Inquiry Testimonies Faces a Key Court Battle

By Anya van Wagtendonk, Vox

26 October 19


A lawsuit questions whether the White House can block testimonies by claiming “constitutional immunity.”

he Trump administration has attempted to block a key witness from testifying in the impeachment inquiry by claiming “constitutional immunity.” And that witness — former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman — has asked a judge to rule whether his testimony can proceed as planned.

Kupperman made the request in a lawsuit filed Friday; he was set to testify before lawmakers on Monday, after being subpoenaed. The House Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry have been calling key witnesses related to President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine at at a rapid clip, and the Trump administration has tried — and largely failed — to derail these testimonies.

The administration had not previously invoked constitutional immunity, and the decision in Kupperman’s lawsuit could be precedent-setting at a moment in which officials are increasingly caught between directives from the executive and legislative branches that at are, as Kupperman’s lawyer said in a statement, “competing and irreconcilable.”

“Plaintiff obviously cannot satisfy the competing demands of both the legislative and executive branches, and he is aware of no controlling judicial authority definitively establishing which branch’s command should prevail,” the suit reads.

The White House has said it will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Kupperman has said White House lawyers told him not to comply with the subpoena. Thus far, these executive branch efforts to slow the pace of investigation have been unsuccessful; one session was postponed after the US ambassador to the EU hesitated to come before Congress under pressure from the president. That ambassador eventually testified; other officials have ignored the White House’s wishes.

Kupperman’s suit could bring new clarity to the question of what government officials should do when given competing instructions from Congress and the White House. Should the judge rule Kupperman is protected by constitutional immunity, the Trump administration would have a powerful new way to shield officials from congressional subpoenas; however, should the opposite ruling be handed down, lawmakers could become more forceful in compelling testimony and could have more supporting evidence for the argument Trump is trying to obstruct Congress.

The claim of constitutional immunity itself goes a step beyond that of “executive privilege,” a concept Trump has used in previous attempts to bar some high-ranking officials from giving testimony. Executive privilege can excuse people from discussing specific occurrences within the White House. But constitutional immunity can excuse those same people from having to testify at all.

The lawsuit comes at a critical time for the impeachment inquiry. Many witnesses have already appeared before Congress, and have painted a fuller picture of Trump’s desire to have Ukraine investigate the family of former Vice President Joe Biden. But in the days to come, lawmakers hope to interview a number of officials who they believe can provide even more information. Trump, on the other hand, could use a win following a Friday decision in Washington, DC district court that rejected the Republican argument that the impeachment inquiry is invalid because the House has yet to issue a formal resolution about it.

Not only was the inquiry ruled valid, but Judge Beryl Howell ordered the administration to provide the House Judiciary Committee material from the Mueller report investigation that had previously been kept secret.

Despite the White House’s efforts, witness testimonies continue

Despite the White House’s attempts to stop its employees from participating in the inquiry, depositions continue apace. Proceedings were briefly postponed this week to mark the passing of Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who had been chair of the House Oversight Committee. They resumed on Saturday with Philip Reeker, acting assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, who will testify behind closed doors.

Next week, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European affairs at the National Security Council, and Kathryn Wheelbarger, acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, are both expected to appear.

And Tim Morrison, senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council, is scheduled to discuss who may have been listening in on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that led to the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment inquiry.

Morrison was referred to several times during explosive testimony last week by Bill Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, who suggested that Trump attempted to engage in a quid pro quo exchange of military aid for a foreign investigation into the affairs of the Biden family.

As Vox’s Alex Ward wrote, it was the most damning account to date on whether Trump attempted to withhold $391 million in military aid to Ukraine for his own political and personal gain:

The ambassador reportedly said that Trump made the aid contingent on the new Ukrainian government publicly announcing it would reopen an anti-corruption probe into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that Hunter Biden, Joe’s son, once sat on the board of.

Taylor said Trump also wanted Kyiv to investigate a long-debunked 2016 election conspiracy theory: that a Democratic National Committee server was whisked away to Ukraine to hide the fact that the country interfered in that vote, not Russia.

It’s not out of the ordinary for the US to dangle incentives to get what it wants from another country. The problem, as Taylor’s testimony makes clear, is that Trump used his power to get Ukraine to help his reelection efforts by hurting his political rival.

The procession of testimonies from a range of current and former officials could soon include John Bolton, who served as national security adviser during Trump’s phone call with Zelenskiy. Bolton was relieved of his duties last month. Now a private citizen, Bolton would not be constrained by the White House’s efforts to limit witness testimony.

And as Vox’s Andrew Prokop wrote this week, “Given his high-level White House access, his unimpeachable Republican credentials, and his falling-out with Trump, Bolton’s testimony could be explosive.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Under Medicare for All, You Will Never Lose Your Health Insurance Ever Again Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47654"><span class="small">Matt Bruenig, Jacobin</span></a>   
Saturday, 26 October 2019 12:56

Bruenig writes: "Seventy percent of Americans oppose bosses being allowed to change or eliminate an employee's health insurance. That's our strongest case for Medicare for All - you'll never lose your health insurance again."

A patient looks over paperwork with a doctor. (photo: Craig F. Walker/Denver Post)
A patient looks over paperwork with a doctor. (photo: Craig F. Walker/Denver Post)


Under Medicare for All, You Will Never Lose Your Health Insurance Ever Again

By Matt Bruenig, Jacobin

26 October 19


Seventy percent of Americans oppose bosses being allowed to change or eliminate an employee’s health insurance. That’s our strongest case for Medicare for All — you’ll never lose your health insurance again.

any centrist pundits have convinced themselves that Medicare for All (M4A) is unpopular because, when you include certain details about M4A in polling questions, support levels drop significantly. But in convincing themselves of this, centrist pundits seem remarkably incurious about whether this same thing occurs for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) when you include certain details about it in polling questions.

Earlier this week, Emerson Polling helped answer this question when it asked voters whether they support employers being allowed to change or eliminate an employee’s health insurance against the employee’s wishes. Only 11 percent of voters said they supported this while 70 percent opposed it.

This key and inherent feature of ESI, which is present in our status quo system and is preserved in Pete Buttigieg’s health plan and Joe Biden’s health plan, is one of the least popular things I’ve ever seen polled about the US health care system.

What I make of polls like this, along with the rest of the polls conducted on health care proposals, is that as a general rule people absolutely hate the idea of insurance instability. The best way to scare people about M4A is to use talking points that make it seem like their insurance situation is going to become unstable, i.e. “you will lose your current health insurance plan.” But these same sorts of talking points work equally well when trying to slam ESI. “Your employer can change or eliminate your health insurance at any time without your consent” is a terrifying thought but is exactly how ESI works.

Outside of the messaging game though, there is an objective answer to the question of whether M4A or ESI provides you the most stability. And the answer is that M4A does. After M4A is enacted, Americans will be seamlessly covered from cradle to grave by a national health plan that does not go away when they change jobs, when they turn twenty-six, when their employer finds a cheaper alternative, or anything else.

This is a key selling point of M4A — you will never lose your health insurance ever again — and M4A advocates need to be emphasizing it more, especially when faced with spurious criticisms that attempt to somehow cast M4A as the system that causes people to lose their insurance.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 Next > End >>

Page 711 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