RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Public Demands Investigation of Why FBI Infiltrators in Trump Campaign Failed to Prevent Him From Being Elected Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 22 May 2018 14:11

Borowitz writes: "Millions of Americans are demanding an investigation into why, if F.B.I. operatives managed to infiltrate the 2016 Trump campaign, they utterly failed to prevent a nightmarish despot from being elected."

President Trump. (photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg)
President Trump. (photo: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg)


Public Demands Investigation of Why FBI Infiltrators in Trump Campaign Failed to Prevent Him From Being Elected

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

22 May 18

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


illions of Americans are demanding an investigation into why, if F.B.I. operatives managed to infiltrate the 2016 Trump campaign, they utterly failed to prevent a nightmarish despot from being elected.

In interviews across the country, Americans expressed dismay and, in some cases, despair at the news that F.B.I. infiltrators might have had a golden opportunity to prevent the nation’s current unspeakable nightmare from unfolding but did not get the job done.

“The thought of F.B.I. infiltrators being inside the Trump campaign but not sabotaging it is, in a word, devastating,” Carol Foyler, of Akron, Ohio, said. “If it turns out to be true, I will totally lose my faith in F.B.I. infiltrators.”

Harland Dorrinson, of St. Petersburg, Florida, agreed. “If F.B.I. infiltrators were in a position to derail the most heinous threat to democracy in American history but didn’t succeed for some reason, that would be bigger than Watergate,” he said.

Tracy Klugian, of Denver, Colorado, said that a “full and exhaustive investigation” is needed to “determine why our system of F.B.I. infiltrators preventing a horrific proto-fascist menace from taking office somehow broke down.”

“We need to find out what went wrong and fix it before the 2020 election,” he said. “I won’t be able to sleep at night until I know that F.B.I. operatives are infiltrating Trump’s reëlection campaign and irreparably crippling it.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Recent Mass Shootings in US All Have One Thing in Common: Misogyny Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 22 May 2018 14:09

Valenti writes: "How many more tragedies have to happen before we recognize that misogyny kills?"

Santa Fe high school students hug each other outside the Alamo gym after the shooting on 18 May. (photo: Michael Ciaglo/AP)
Santa Fe high school students hug each other outside the Alamo gym after the shooting on 18 May. (photo: Michael Ciaglo/AP)


Recent Mass Shootings in US All Have One Thing in Common: Misogyny

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

22 May 18


The longer we ignore the toxic masculinity that underlies so many of these crimes, the more violence we’re enabling

he massacre at Santa Fe high school last week that left 10 people dead – most of them students – seems to have something in common with so many other mass shootings that happen in the US: misogyny. The shooter, one victim’s mother claims, targeted her daughter as the first victim because she rejected his continued harassing advances.

How many more tragedies have to happen before we recognize that misogyny kills? The longer we ignore the toxic masculinity that underlies so many of these crimes, the more violence we’re enabling.

Sadie Rodriguez told the LA Times that her daughter Shana Fisher “had four months of problems” from the Santa Fe shooter.

“He kept making advances on her and she repeatedly told him no.” A week before the shooting, she says, her daughter stood up to the shooter and “embarrassed him in class”.

This comes not even a month after the van attack in Toronto that killed 10 people and injured 13 more – violence enacted by a man who was reportedly furious that women wouldn’t sleep with him. Before that there was the 2015 shooting at an Oregon college by a young man who complained of being a virgin with “no girlfriend”. In 2014, there was Elliot Rodger, who killed six people and left behind a 140-page sexist manifesto and videos where he warned: “I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me but I will punish you all for it.” In 2009, George Sodini killed three women at a gym in Pennsylvania after lamenting online that younger women wouldn’t date him.

Even in the mass shootings where the stated motive isn’t disdain for women, there’s often a history of domestic or sexual violence from the killer.

Since the attack, we’ve heard Republican leaders blame the violence on everything from Ritalin use and video games to lack of religion in schools and even abortion. (Never guns, of course – despite the fact that this is the 22nd school shooting in the US just this year.)

And even though feminists continue to raise the alarm about the common thread of sexism and misogyny in these crimes, too many people seem to be missing the point.

After the attack in Toronto, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat published an ill-advised piece about the “redistribution of sex”, an idea that originated in misogynist online forums for “incels” who would like to see women forced to have sex with “low status” men. And just a few days ago, Canadian psychology professor and author Jordan Peterson, who enjoys a cult following of disaffected young men, said in a New York Times profile that young men wouldn’t commit crimes of mass violence if there was “enforced monogamy”.

The solution to misogynist crimes isn’t to ensure that violent men have sexual access to women – it’s that we teach men that they’re not entitled to women’s sexual attention to begin with.

Women should not have to be afraid of rejecting a man lest he kills her and others; men should not grow up believing that they’re owed sex by women. These should not be tall orders.

Before another young man decides to take his misogynist rage out at a school, or a gym, or a city street – let’s finally do something.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: How Pompeo's "Severest Sanctions" on Iran Will Backfire Print
Tuesday, 22 May 2018 12:15

Cole writes: "Unilateral US sanctions as a means of regime change or radically changing regime behavior have a strong record of failure."

Mike Pompeo. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Mike Pompeo. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)


How Pompeo's "Severest Sanctions" on Iran Will Backfire

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

22 May 18

 

ecretary of State Mike Pompeo speech on new sanctions on Iran lays out a wide range of Iranian behavior he would like to change, and specified harsh US financial sanctions as his instrument.

Pompeo, a Kansas oil man backed by the Koch brothers, is just a former congressman and a virulent Christian fundamentalist with white nationalist tendencies. He knows little about the world and is among the worst prepared secretaries of state in American history. He also knows nothing about the history of the region.

Unilateral US sanctions as a means of regime change or radically changing regime behavior have a strong record of failure, especially when applied to states with pricey primary commodities like petroleum.

Among the harshest sanctions ever were applied by the US and the UN to Iraq in the 1990s, and the ruling Iraq Baath Party of Saddam Hussein was able to survive. They cheated on oil sales, smuggled by truck to Turkey and Jordan, and built up billions in their coffers, which cushioned the Baath officials and the military commanders. At the same time, the sanctions destroyed the middle classes and drove people into slummy poverty. Iraq’s literacy rate even slipped. These effects strengthened the regime, which was still oil rich, against the increasingly poverty-stricken Iraqi public, many of whom began turning to religious fundamentalism of the Sadrist variety. The sanctions backfired on the West. It took an actual invasion and long term occupation of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his Baath regime. Ex-Baathists thus forcibly deposed sometimes joined extremist groups such as ISIL.

The classic work on sanctions by K.A. Elliot and G.C. Huffbauer “concluded that empirical research on 115 cases of sanctions imposed from World War I to 1990 indicate that sanctions are more likely to succeed if its goal is modest, the target country is smaller than the sending country, the receiving and sending countries have friendly relations with substantial trade prior to imposition of sanctions, the cost to sending country is not significant, and sanctions are imposed quickly and decisively.” (Quoting S. Shojai and Patricia S. Root, “Effectiveness Of Economic Sanctions: Empirical Research Revisited,” The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online) Vol. 12, Issue 11. Date: 2013.)

Pompeo’s press on Iran is the opposite of those successful cases in most regards. The US did not have good trade relations with Iran before Pompeo, and Pompeo’s demands are extremely wide-ranging. Historical experience therefore predicts failure.

Moreover, Pompeo’s image of the politics of the Middle East is just warmed over Christian Zionism. He sees tiny Hizbullah of Lebanon as a threat to Israel. In fact, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, half destroyed Beirut (which helped inspire Bin Laden to attack New York) and occupied 10% of Lebanon’s territory for 18 years, in the south. Hizbullah grew up as a resistance movement to that occupation, and it has been designated by the Lebanese cabinet as a national guard for the country’s south. Pompeo and his ilk never minded this brutal occupation and never went to bat for Lebanon. If Hizbullah did not exist, likely the Israelis would try to expand north again the very next day. But Hizbullah has not capability to attack Israel conventionally. In Lebanese terms, it is a defensive organization, which is why Lebanon’s Christians now appear largely to support it politically.

Pompeo also completely disregards the key role of Shiite militias backed by Iran in defeating ISIL, an organization that grew up as a direct result of the Republican Party’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

From a Middle East point of view, the US gave them ISIL, and Iran defeated ISIL. Even some Iraqi Sunnis feel this way. Pompeo’s perspective will have no resonance in the region outside Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Even Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, half of the old Gulf Cooperation Council of Sunni Gulf monarchies, have reacted with dismay or lukewarmness toward the Trump withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

What Pompeo’s policy does suggest for the future is that Iran’s middle class will probably suffer some downward mobility, which will strengthen the regime and the hardliners and prolong the life of the regime.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Rod Rosenstein's Dangerous Gamble Print
Tuesday, 22 May 2018 11:19

Miller writes: "President Trump on Sunday launched his most direct attack on the Justice Department's independence since he fired FBI Director James B. Comey."

Rod Rosenstein. (photo: Greg Nash)
Rod Rosenstein. (photo: Greg Nash)


Rod Rosenstein's Dangerous Gamble

By Matthew Miller, The Washington Post

22 May 18

 

resident Trump on Sunday launched his most direct attack on the Justice Department’s independence since he fired FBI Director James B. Comey, taking to Twitter to “hereby demand” that it open a counter-investigation of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump’s demand crossed every institutional norm that has long safeguarded the Justice Department’s independence. The president was calling for an investigation into both political opponents from the former administration and career law enforcement agents, without evidence of wrongdoing, for the obvious purpose of undermining a criminal probe into his own conduct and that of his associates. Trump was clearly testing the limits of the system that constrains presidential interference with the Justice Department. And the response so far — including Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein’s decision to refer the matter to the department’s inspector general — shows that the system is failing.

There is no legitimate justification for asking the inspector general to investigate a hyped-up claim that the FBI inappropriately infiltrated the Trump campaign. Just as in February there was no legitimate justification for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in response to claims by House Republicans, asking the inspector general to investigate alleged — and debunked — abuses by the department in securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against former Trump aide Carter Page.

But the president’s direct involvement — and his transparent motives in using the demand to undermine the Mueller probe — makes the abuse here far more grave. It is one thing for an inspector general to review unsubstantiated allegations made by members of Congress. It is quite another for an inspector general to do so at the direction of a compromised president — whose demands carry the implicit threat of removal and who, in this case, is himself the subject of the underlying investigation.

Rosenstein is without a doubt in a tough spot, and the blame here does not rest with him. Republican members of Congress — at times in direct coordination with the president — have launched an unprecedented attack on Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, demanding that the special counsel turn over sensitive materials of a type that the Justice Department has never before released while an investigation was ongoing. At times, they seem to be more interested in the confrontation itself, possibly hoping that he will refuse some irrational demand, just so Trump has an excuse to fire him.

Rosenstein has tried to resist Congress’s escalating demands but has often ended up caving under pressure. He turned over texts between two FBI employees, allowing them to be smeared by the president and the conservative media while the FBI investigation into their conduct was ongoing. (There still has been no finding of wrongdoing on their behalf and may never be, but the damage to their reputations is done.) He allowed Congress to view the FISA applications regarding Page, as well as a highly sensitive and classified document that launched the Russia investigation.

In surrendering this ground, Rosenstein seems to be giving the president and his defenders in Congress just enough accommodation — without fatally compromising the Justice Department’s independence — to forestall either his own firing or Mueller’s and to buy enough time for Mueller to complete his work.

But this is a dangerous game, and in the short term it may only embolden the president. Just think about it from Trump’s perspective: He crossed what has long been seen as a red line on Sunday, and not only did he not pay any consequence but also he got at least some of what he wanted. In referring his demand to the inspector general, Rosenstein gave credence both to the ideas that there was something nefarious in the Russia probe’s launch and that it is acceptable for a president to demand a counter-probe into a Justice Department investigation.

I don’t know whether Rosenstein’s gamble will work. It may. But there is something to be said for the approach he laid out a few weeks ago, when he forcefully declared that “the Justice Department is not going to be extorted” and promised that he would resist threats to him being made by unnamed people publicly and privately.

Standing up to Trump this weekend might have provoked the cataclysmic confrontation between the Justice Department and the president that has at times seemed inevitable since the Russia probe began. But the alternative is watching the slow erosion of the department’s independence, as the president’s attacks take hold, Republicans in Congress either egg him on or cower in corners, and the norms of presidential behavior drift inexorably in Trump’s direction.

For now, Rosenstein seems to be delaying a fight with the president. But that day will come, and we should all hope he recognizes it before it is too late.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Here's What to Know as Voters in Texas, Georgia, Kentucky and Arkansas Head to the Polls Today Print
Tuesday, 22 May 2018 08:23

Excerpt: "Four Southern states are holding primaries or runoffs today, with Democrats picking nominees in a half-dozen competitive House races and Republicans working to hold off surprises in places they've come to dominate."

Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: John Sommers II/Getty Images)
Voters at a polling precinct. (photo: John Sommers II/Getty Images)


Here's What to Know as Voters in Texas, Georgia, Kentucky and Arkansas Head to the Polls Today

By David Weigel and Sean Sullivan, The Washington Post

22 May 18

 

our Southern states are holding primaries or runoffs today, with Democrats picking nominees in a half-dozen competitive House races and Republicans working to hold off surprises in places they’ve come to dominate.

While the Democrats’ race for governor of Georgia has earned the most attention, congressional contests in Arkansas, Kentucky and Texas may reveal more about the shape of the party in this year's midterm elections.

Arkansas

Democrats, who have not controlled a federal office in the state since 2014, are looking for a comeback in the 2nd Congressional District, which covers Little Rock and its suburbs. Republican Rep. French Hill, who has no primary challenger, is already on the air with TV ads; so is Clarke Tucker, a state representative who is running on his story of beating cancer and his record of expanding Medicaid in the state.

“I poured my sweat into making that happen in the legislature, and [ACA repeal] would have gutted that,” Tucker said in an interview. “I’m a 36-year-old with a preexisting condition. This is personal for me.”

To avoid a runoff, Tucker needs to secure more than 50 percent of the vote against three challengers, all of whom are running to his left. Paul Spencer, who entered the race months before Tucker, has raised the most money of any of Tucker’s rivals.

Polling has put Tucker in the lead, although short of 50 percent. Democrats are not contesting the races for treasurer or auditor and are trailing in the races for other statewide offices, making a potential Hill-Tucker race the only competitive race in the state. Asked if he would bring Hillary or Bill Clinton in to help, Tucker said he had not yet asked and that it was “not something we spend a lot of time thinking about.”

President Trump on Monday endorsed Gov. Asa Hutchinson in his reelection attempt; he’s facing a primary challenge from the right from Jan Morgan.

Georgia

Both parties are girding for July 24 runoffs in several key races, potentially draining resources while the other party stockpiles money for the fall.

In the race for governor, Democrats now expect Stacey Abrams, a former legislator and floor leader, to best former legislator Stacey Evans. Polling has found a consistent lead for Abrams, who would be the first black female governor of any state.

Republicans have a more crowded and ideologically fraught contest, with seven candidates — all male — slugging it out for a runoff slot. In the final weeks, the contest has turned on immigration, despite little difference in the candidates’ stances. Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle has run ads on his passage of a “sanctuary city” ban nine years ago, while Secretary of State Brian Kemp and state legislator Michael Williams have talked about personally rounding up “criminal illegals” — Kemp using his pickup truck, Williams with a special “deportation bus.”

Democrats are watching two more primaries in the suburbs of Atlanta, including a do-over attempt in the 6th Congressional District, where Jon Ossoff’s 2017 campaign broke spending records but fell short. Four Democrats are now competing to take on Rep. Karen Handel (R), including gun-control activist Lucy McBath, whose son was fatally shot, and former TV anchor Bobby Kaple.

A similar race is underway in the 7th Congressional District, where six Democrats are competing to give Republican Rep. Rob Woodall his first competitive race since the district was drawn. David Kim, a learning center founder and first-time candidate, has raised more money than Woodall, who has been spending to hold off a Republican primary challenger. Democrats expect primaries in both districts to lead to runoffs.

Kentucky

The Lexington-based 6th Congressional District encapsulates the Democrats’ favorite 2018 dilemma: Places where the party had given up on competing now have crowded primaries. No Democrat has held the seat since 2012, but Marine Corps veteran Amy McGrath is now deadlocked with longtime Lexington Mayor Jim Gray.

The Democratic primary took a contentious turn in the closing days of the race when Gray launched an attack ad that argued McGrath should have lived in the district longer before running for Congress. The former fighter pilot grew up in Kentucky and lived around the world during her military career.

“This is what people hate about politics. This is what drives people away,” McGrath said in a telephone interview in between a busy final day of retail stops. McGrath said a win for her would be a victory for all political newcomers.

“We’re not just going to sit by on the sidelines and watch and see what happens,” McGrath said.

Gray, who unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in 2016, argued that his experience would be a strength. “All you have to do is look at what’s going on in Washington today to see that experience matters,” he said in an interview, adding that he ran the attack ad because “some people were unfamiliar with her history.”

McGrath has been critical of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee officials for talking to Gray about running even after she entered the race. “I’m still frustrated and I’m still upset about the start of this,” she said.

The DCCC had taken a lighter touch in the final months, she added, and Democratic strategists believe that either McGrath or Gray would put the seat in play. And Monday, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a DCCC recruiter, tweeted that he had “made a max out donation” to McGrath after seeing Gray’s “dishonorable negative ad.”

Texas

A primary for governor will play out across the state, but the most bitter Democratic primary of the year so far will come to an end Tuesday, when attorney Lizzie Fletcher and activist Laura Moser face off for the nomination in Texas’s 7th Congressional District — one of 23 that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 while a Republican was sent back to Congress.

Three months ago, the DCCC’s startling decision to publish opposition research on Moser made the race the flashpoint in a fight between the party’s activists and its establishment.

Ten weeks of campaigning cooled things down — and slowed Moser’s national fundraising. Fletcher has four times as much cash on hand after a primary where she presented herself as a center-left pragmatist and cast doubt on Moser’s theory that liberal voter energy could power her to an upset.

“Hillary Clinton is the last Democrat anyone can remember winning this district,” said Fletcher at a candidate forum this month. “We need to look at that model.”

Republicans, who cheered when Moser made the runoff, have largely stayed off the field, and turnout has slowed down. In Harris County, which contains the 7th and several other districts, more than 86,000 early or absentee votes were cast ahead of the March 6 primary; just 34,000 were cast ahead of the runoff. Republican turnout has seen roughly the same swoon, despite two House runoffs in the county, in the safely blue 29th District and deep-red 2nd District.

In other parts of Texas, Democrats will pick their nominees in swing seats and districts that remain strongly Republican but saw a 2016 move away from Trump. In the 23rd District, which runs along the Mexican border, most of the party is backing Iraq War and Obama administration veteran Gina Ortiz Jones over Bernie Sanders campaign activist Rick Trevino to face Republican Rep. Will Hurd. In the Dallas-area 32nd District, former Obama administration official and NFL player Colin Allred is favored over another Obama vet, Lillian Salerno, to run against Rep. Pete Sessions.

Things are dicier in the 21st and 31st districts, both of which Trump won by more than 10 points. In the 31st, Air Force veteran and author M.J. Hegar is in a tight battle with physician Christine Mann; national Democrats prefer Hegar.

And in the 21st, veteran and first-time candidate Joseph Kopser had impressed national Democrats, raising more than $1.1 million. But he was damaged in four-way primary where rival candidates attacked his past as a Republican and his association with a conservative think tank. Democrats believe that a defeat for Kopser by teacher Mary Wilson would push a race for an open seat off their electoral map. In an interview, Kopser said he was working to prevent that.

“I’ve been watching this national narrative, with people asking: Are Democrats going super liberal or super establishment? Trust me, those labels don’t line up with what’s happening here,” Kopser said.

The Democratic gubernatorial primary pits Lupe Valdez, the former sheriff of Dallas County, against Andrew White, the son of one of the state’s last Democratic governors. Valdez topped White by 16 points in the first round of the primary, and Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Tex.), who leads in the polls, has already run web ads attacking her — leading with her criticism of the state’s “sanctuary city” ban. He has run no ads attacking White, a Houston businessman making his first bid for office.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 Next > End >>

Page 1246 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