|
Trump's "Coffee Boy" Keeps Sabotaging His Russia Story |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44647"><span class="small">Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 18 November 2017 09:33 |
|
Tracy writes: "The chaos of the Trump-campaign circus attracted a variety of eccentrics, grifters, hustlers, resume-inflators and Russophiles from which the White House is now doing its best to disassociate from: former adviser Carter Page, the self-described Russian-energy expert who has been talking to the F.B.I."
George Papadopoulos, third from left, meets with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at a 'National Security Meeting' in Washington, in a photo posted to Instagram on March 31, 2016. (photo: @reaDonaldTrump/Instagram)

ALSO SEE: Mueller Subpoenas Trump Campaign for Russia Documents
Trump's "Coffee Boy" Keeps Sabotaging His Russia Story
By Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair
18 November 17
George Papadopoulos told foreign contacts he was a significant player on the campaign—and claims Trump gave him a “blank check” for a White House job.
he chaos of the Trump-campaign circus attracted a variety of eccentrics, grifters, hustlers, résumé-inflators and Russophiles from which the White House is now doing its best to disassociate from: former adviser Carter Page, the self-described Russian-energy expert who has been talking to the F.B.I.; former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who has been indicted on 12 counts of financial crimes related to his lobbying operations in eastern Europe; Mike Flynn, who is being investigated by Robert Mueller for undisclosed work on behalf of the Turkish government that allegedly included a plot to kidnap a Muslim cleric living in rural Pennsylvania. And, of course, there is George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty this summer to lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russians who appear, by any reasonable standard, to have been spies.
Papadopoulos, according to Donald Trump, was a low-level volunteer—a “coffee boy,” according to another former campaign official. But Papadopoulos saw his role as much more significant—and evidence of his travels and communications on behalf of the campaign suggests that it was.
Before and after the 2016 election, Papadopoulos made a series of claims in interviews with Greek journalists that undercut Trump’s dismissive portrait of the then-29 year-old adviser. While the White House has only acknowledged one encounter Trump had with Papadopoulos, the Greek journalists told Politico that Papadopoulos told them he had an “informal” five-minute phone conversation with Trump in March 2016 after he had been selected to join the campaign’s foreign-policy team and that he met the then-presidential hopeful at a March 21 campaign event at the Trump Hotel in Washington. That same day, Trump sat down for the interview with The Washington Post's editorial board in which he listed the members of his newly formed foreign-policy staff and characterized Papadopoulos as “an energy and oil consultant” and “excellent guy.” (Papadopoulos later received approval from a campaign official to broker a meeting with the Russian government, according to records unsealed by the F.B.I., although an attorney for former national campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis said he was just “being polite” when he encouraged a trip to Europe.)
It is possible that Papadopoulos exaggerated his influence in Europe, where he sought out meetings with foreign officials and later took credit for Trump’s election victory. “Everyone knows I helped him [get] elected, now I want to help him with the presidency,” Papadopoulos said in one text message published by the Greek newspaper Kathimerini. On another occasion, Papadopoulos reportedly boasted that he had a “blank check” for a position in the Trump administration, Politico reports, a claim the Greek journalists expressed skepticism about. “During our interview, I felt that he was probably lucky, having just met Trump in person and then Trump being interviewed and mentioning his name,” Marianna Kakaounaki, an investigative reporter for Kathimerini, told Politico. “That mention opened a lot of Greek doors for him, and probably in other countries too.” One source close to Papadopoulos told Politico that the former foreign-policy adviser’s claims about his personal interactions with Trump were fabricated, but didn’t go into detail.
Regardless, however, Papadopoulos’s boasts appear to have opened doors for him. Politico reports that Papadopoulos traveled at least twice to Greece and, as a representative of the Trump campaign, met with senior government officials, including President Prokopis Pavlopoulos while he was there. He is also reported to have met, at various points, with British Under-Secretary of State for Defence People and Veterans Tobias Ellwood, as well as Cypriot and Israeli officials, in addition to his now well-publicized contacts with Russian intermediaries. All of this is certainly of interest to Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller, with whom he is now cooperating. “Obviously, the committee is interested in the role that Papadopoulos played in the campaign, especially given the way that the White House has downplayed his role,” one member of the House Intelligence Committee told Politico. “We certainly want to know about any meetings he had with senior campaign officials, including the president, about his travel abroad, and about any meetings he took part in with foreign counterparts or government officials.”
The vast web of relationships between multiple members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials or intermediaries has, of course, made it difficult for the White House to distance the president from the targets of Mueller’s investigation. It’s a dilemma that the Kremlin, far from wanting to help Trump resolve, seems to be enjoying. On Wednesday, when asked during an interview with Russia-1 to name all the Trump administration officials he met with or spoke to on the phone, the former Russian ambassador responded, sardonically, “First, I'm never going to do that. And second, the list is so long that I'm not going to be able to go through it in 20 minutes.”

|
|
How Prosecutors Turn a Protest Into a 'Riot' |
|
|
Saturday, 18 November 2017 09:29 |
|
Lagesse writes: "A year ago, I was finalizing plans to leave a chemical engineering Ph.D. program and join the tech sector. But as Inauguration Day approached, I became so disgusted by President-elect Donald Trump's behavior that I felt it would have been negligent to remain a bystander."
Police officers in Washington, D.C., using pepper spray on protesters on Inauguration Day. (photo: Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

How Prosecutors Turn a Protest Into a 'Riot'
By Elizabeth Ariadne Lagesse, The New York Times
18 November 17
year ago, I was finalizing plans to leave a chemical engineering Ph.D. program and join the tech sector. But as Inauguration Day approached, I became so disgusted by President-elect Donald Trump’s behavior that I felt it would have been negligent to remain a bystander. So I traveled from Baltimore to join hundreds of thousands of protesters at counterdemonstrations around Mr. Trump’s swearing-in.
Little did I know that I would be swept up into a legal nightmare that demonstrates how prosecutors intimidate and manipulate defendants into giving up their rights.
Minutes after I got to downtown Washington on Jan. 20, police officers used pepper spray, “sting-ball” grenades and flailing batons to sweep up an entire city block in a mass-arrest tactic known as “kettling.” I was among the more than 230 people confined at 12th and L Streets with no access to food, water or bathrooms for up to eight hours.
READ MORE

|
|
|
Trump Voters Celebrate Massive Tax Cut for Everyone but Them |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 17 November 2017 15:26 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Jubilant Trump voters on Thursday celebrated the prospect of a gigantic tax cut that will benefit everyone but them."
Trump campaigning for president. (photo: Mark Wallheiser/Getty)

Trump Voters Celebrate Massive Tax Cut for Everyone but Them
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
17 November 17
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." 
ubilant Trump voters on Thursday celebrated the prospect of a gigantic tax cut that will benefit everyone but them.
Across the country, Trump supporters were overjoyed that, after months of gridlock and wrangling, the man they voted for was about to make Americans other than them wildly richer.
“President Trump has taken a lot of hits from the fake-news media, but he stood his ground,” Carol Foyler, a Trump voter in Ohio, said. “Today he honored his pledge to the American people, except for me and anybody I know.”
Harland Dorrinson, a Trump supporter from Kentucky, agreed. “When I cast my vote last November, I said to myself, ‘I sure hope this means that people with a thousand times more money than I have get even more money,’ ” he said. “Promise kept.”
Tracy Klugian, a Trump voter from Minnesota, said that tax cuts for everyone but him are an important step toward making America great again. “Look at the stock market—it’s been going through the roof,” Klugian, who has no money in the stock market, said.
But some Trump supporters, like Calvin Denoit, of Texas, were more muted. “Tax cuts that completely exclude me and my family are a good start,” he said. “But, until President Trump eliminates all environmental and safety regulations for corporations that I have zero stake in, I won’t be satisfied.”

|
|
Socialized Medicine Delivers Comforts and Convenience That Americans Can Only Dream About |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46703"><span class="small">Meagan Day, Jacobin</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 17 November 2017 15:10 |
|
Day writes: "In many places around the world, national health insurance not only isn't austere - it's downright luxurious."
Medical staff prepares for surgery. (photo: Queen's University at Kingston)

Socialized Medicine Delivers Comforts and Convenience That Americans Can Only Dream About
By Meagan Day, Jacobin
17 November 17
Forget rationing and waiting lists. Socialized medicine delivers comforts and convenience that Americans can only dream about.
nyone can get care without courting financial ruin. Monumental personal decisions, like when to have a child or whether to leave or take a job, no longer hinge on the whims of an employer or the dysfunctions of the private insurance market. Surprise hospital bills, endless phone calls with insurance companies, juggling premiums, copays, and deductibles — all will be things of the past.
The case against single-payer often boils down to a single word: rationing. When critics peddle scare stories about Canadian or British “waiting lists,” they’re trying to conjure images of scarcity and austerity – the social-democratic equivalent of Soviet bread lines.
The truth, of course, is that you only have to look around to see that health care in America is already rationed. Try finding an in-demand specialist willing to take your “bronze-tier” insurance plan, or paying for high-priced specialty prescriptions out of pocket. Health care rationing is a fact of life in this country.
But there’s another important point to be made about single-payer and “rationing”: in many places around the world, national health insurance not only isn’t austere — it’s downright luxurious.
A Card up Their Sleeve
Americans, with our predatory health care system, can be easy to impress. The simple fact that the French can visit any health facility in the entire country, for example, seems astonishing. No provider is out of network, because there’s no such thing as a network. Instead, there’s a universal public insurance system that can’t turn applicants down, can’t terminate insurance, and almost never denies claims.
In France there’s no such thing as a deductible: insurance kicks in from the first euro billed. Since there’s no need to hire people to rifle through reams of paperwork and make judgment calls about denying claims and refusing coverage — and because the system has no stockholders to pay dividends to — the French insurance system spends next to nothing on paperwork.
Prices for treatments are fixed, and cost the patient next to nothing. For Americans accustomed to the need to change doctors every time they change plans, change plans every time they change jobs, and navigate things like claims denials, unpredictable charges, and endless paperwork, it seems extravagant.
But the conveniences don’t stop there. Since French providers aren’t carved up into networks, the government is able to issue what’s called a carte vitale, or “life card,” to all legal residents over the age of 15. With the patient’s permission, the card contains centralized information on the patient’s every medical visit, treatment, prescription, surgery and so on, going back to 1998. (Children’s records are stored on a parent’s card).
The physician inserts the carte vitale into a card-reader and the patient’s medical records pop up on a screen. Not only does it help doctors offer informed care, but it makes billing simple and eliminates much of the nightmare of transferring medical records. The physician logs the treatments, hits a button, and then waits roughly three days to be paid.
When doctors go on house calls, they take a portable card-reader with them. That’s right — in France they make house calls. Patients can request one anytime by calling a round-the-clock national hotline. The visit costs just thirty-one euros.
Cradle to Grave
The bare-bones austerity of American health care becomes truly glaring when we look at maternal, infant, and elderly care.
In Holland, anyone who gives birth to a baby is entitled to a kraamverzorgster, or in-home postnatal nurse, covered by the country’s basic government-funded health insurance. The kraamverzorgster watches over the health of the newborn and mother, provides medical advice, and helps out with bathing, diaper changes, and even laundry. The care workers employed in the nation’s kraamzorg system work an average of forty-nine hours over eight days per family. The program is universal and not income-dependent — a woman who works as a kraamverzorgster is entitled to a kraamverzorgster of her own.
France’s national health program has something similar, with nurses assigned to new mothers at home for the first week. It also includes access to a network of neighborhood clinics where new mothers can bring their infants at any time, even without an appointment. The clinics offer universal provision of postnatal physical therapies, including la rééducation périnéale, which helps mothers retrain the muscles of their pelvic floor. Lightly ridiculed in the American press as a symbol of French profligacy, the therapy actually decreases the incidence of urinary incontinence and improves women’s sex lives, while also making it safer and less painful to have more children should they choose to do so.
In Norway, where the system comes closer to what we might call true socialized medicine — where both the insurance and the provider systems are publicly run — new parents receive home visits from midwives on top of a generous allowance furnished by the state, which can be used however the parents see fit. The Norwegian government accomplishes this while spending significantly less per capita on health care than the United States.
In T. R. Reid’s The Healing of America, the American author asks a British friend to tally how much she spent having her baby in England. “Twelve quid,” she answers: two for a copy of the sonogram photo, ten for the taxi on delivery day. In the US, by contrast, women with insurance can expect to pay $3,400, and without insurance, the sky’s the limit. With childbirth so expensive, maternal hospital stays have gotten shorter: new mothers are sent home within a couple of days and typically have an ob-gyn checkup about six weeks after birth. Partly as a result, the US has the highest maternal death rate in the rich world — almost three times that of the UK.
Will You Still Feed Me?
Long-term care is another area where universal health care systems deliver the goods. Eight million Americans require long-term care services, most of them elderly. As many as two-thirds can’t afford to buy long-term care insurance, and Medicare doesn’t cover extended stays in nursing homes. Without coverage, the price of assisted living is comparable to private college tuition. As a result, many middle-class Americans’ best hope of affording long-term care is becoming eligible for Medicaid, which requires selling off assets and then draining nearly all personal savings to meet means-tested criteria.
The Scandinavian countries cover all long-term care through the state, both in-home and in residential facilities. Denmark, Germany, Holland, and Norway all offer generous state benefits and compensation to people who take time out of the labor force to care for loved ones. The Czech Republic and Poland offer state-funded allowances to elderly people in need of long-term care, similar to the Nordic child benefit model.
Japan, meanwhile, has implemented a universal, publicly funded insurance system specifically for long-term care, covering not just residential stays but also drop-in community centers for the elderly. It also pays for caregivers to help with minor chores, long before an elderly person becomes incapacitated — the point being to keep seniors in their homes and communities for as long as possible. When they do end up in assisted living facilities, they can benefit from the Japanese government’s heavy investments in developing robots to assist with residential elder care, spanning from interactive stuffed animals to machines that can transfer a patient from bed to wheelchair.
Japan implemented its long-term care insurance system when policymakers realized that changing family structures and rapid aging meant that relying on informal care would inevitably lead to a crisis like the one currently facing the United States. They made the choice to socialize care to avoid the dystopian scenario of millions of neglected, impoverished elderly moldering in underfunded institutions — precisely the scenario that American conservatives equate with public care systems.
In a study of long-term care insurance recipients, one regular at a Japanese senior community center said, “Since I’m injured and can’t move as well, I used to just lay there, stare at the ceiling and listen to the radio, and feel the changing of the seasons. Then someone from the Hana House recommended to me if I would like to go to the day services.” He described becoming active in crafting workshops at the center, which he claims increased his mobility. “Because of this place I’ve become a lot healthier.”
“First and foremost,” said another survey respondent, “I feel a sense of safety.”
Whose Death Spiral?
“Politicians pushing a single-payer system will promise a utopia”; but if they get their way, Americans will see the “shambles that will remain of our healthcare system once the death spiral concludes its destructive path,” warns The Federalist, a right-wing publication.
And yet the US, with the most capitalist, market-driven health care system of any developed nation, can’t boast of France’s postnatal vaginal rehabilitation therapy, Japan’s state-of-the-art elderly care robots, or Germany’s government-subsidized spa vacations for a ten euro copay. And with our raging opioid crisis, shocking infant and maternal mortality rates, and incidences of death from treatable illness, the private insurance-based system is already caught in a death spiral.
Luxury socialism isn’t just a meme — it’s a working theory that holds that social care, among other things, isn’t a zero-sum game. Marx and Engels saw that a society divided by class and driven by the profit imperative produces an abundance of resources alongside an abundance of unmet needs. Socialism, if it’s about anything, is about matching our resources to our needs, to improve our collective quality of life. Socialized health insurance — and the comforts it provides — would be a pretty good start.

|
|