|
Choose the Right Tool |
 |
|
Tuesday, 09 May 2017 13:56 |
|
Galindez writes: "In every toolbox, there are a variety of tools to use in various situations. As progressives, we have a variety of instruments to choose from, depending on the situation. Some devices can be used in multiple situations, while others are better for particular circumstances."
President Donald Trump looks to House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and other House congressmen in the Rose Garden after the House pushed through a health care bill, at the White House in Washington, D.C., May 04, 2017. (photo: Jabin Botsford/Getty Images/WP)
Choose the Right Tool
By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
09 May 17
 n every toolbox, there are a variety of tools to use in various situations. As progressives, we have a variety of instruments to choose from, depending on the situation. Some devices can be used in multiple situations, while others are better for particular circumstances.
This past week, Republicans in Congress voted to repeal Obamacare. There are lots of groups that will resist that action. One such group is Indivisible. For the broadest possible resistance to the Trump agenda, Indivisible is a useful tool. We should use that tool to work with establishment Democrats to build the largest possible resistance to Trump.
I often hear people expressing frustration that there are too many groups forming that should instead just be working together. While that is a logical conclusion, it is not the most effective blueprint for the revolution. Think of each group as another tool each with different strengths and uses.
The example of resistance to repealing Obamacare is a wise situation to use Indivisible. Now, when it comes to improving Obamacare and transforming America's healthcare system, other organizations are more efficient.
When it comes to solutions, we are not on the same page with everyone who opposes Trump. Therefore we should work on transformation in other venues. The progressive/neoliberal debate should happen in other places. Leave the Bernie v Hillary debate at the door when we go to an Indivisible meeting. What matters at Indivisible is that we oppose Trump and the GOP agenda.
When we attend a meeting of Our Revolution, Democracy for America, MoveOn, etc., then we should debate the direction of the Democratic Party. Those are the venues for developing a progressive agenda to transform the Democratic Party.
Using healthcare as an example, at Indivisible we fight against a Republican repeal of Obamacare. However, at Our Revolution, we can expand that to a fight for single payer healthcare. Many at Indivisible will join us in this struggle, but not all. It shouldn't mean that we don't work with Indivisible to resist Trump. We should just not expect to agree with everyone at Indivisible on the solution.
Groups like Our Revolution are where we develop our plan for the future. Groups like Indivisible are where we resist the Republican agenda. The ultimate goal is to transform the Democratic Party into the vehicle we need to change the country.
So next time a fight breaks out at an Indivisible meeting over whose fault it was that Trump won, call time out and reframe the goal of the organization. Remind everyone that we are all there to resist Trump, and other debates are for other groups.
If we choose the right tools, they will all help us build the America that we all dream about.
Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott moved to Des Moines in 2015 to cover the Iowa Caucus.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
 |
|
Monday's Russia Hearing Was a Disaster for Trump |
|
|
Tuesday, 09 May 2017 13:49 |
|
Rupar writes: "After acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate panel on Monday and provided troubling details about how slow the White House was to act on information its then-national security adviser may have been compromised by Russia, President Trump took to Twitter to try and tamp the whole thing down."
President Trump walks from Marine One across the South Lawn to the White House on May 7 as he returns from Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. (photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Monday's Russia Hearing Was a Disaster for Trump
By Aaron Rupar, ThinkProgress
09 May 17
His key talking point, destroyed.
 fter acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before a Senate panel on Monday and provided troubling details about how slow the White House was to act on information its then-national security adviser may have been compromised by Russia, President Trump took to Twitter to try and tamp the whole thing down.
But the first of four tweets Trump published about the hearing made a claim that was undermined earlier in the day by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who testified alongside Yates.
“Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is ‘no evidence’ of collusion w/ Russia and Trump,” the president tweeted.
This, however, is not what Clapper said on Monday.
What Clapper actually said
On March 4, Clapper went on Meet the Press, and was asked by Chuck Todd if he’s aware of evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
“Not to my knowledge,” Clapper replied.
Just over two weeks later, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia. That same day, Trump seized upon Clapper’s Meet the Press remark to try and undercut the notion he’s involved in a scandal.
On March 20, Press Secretary Sean Spicer cited Clapper’s remark during his press briefing, telling reporters that while “Director Comey confirmed that the FBI in investigating Russia’s role in interfering in the election,” nothing had changed.
“Senior Obama intelligence officials have gone on record to confirm that there is no evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion,” Spicer said. “The Obama CIA director said so, Obama’s director of national intelligence said so, and we take them at their word.”
Indeed, days after Clapper’s interview, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell said he believes there’s “no fire” underpinning the smoke surrounding Trump’s relationship with Russia. But Morell indicated his position was based on Clapper’s remark, saying, “That’s a pretty strong statement by General Clapper.”
On Monday, however, Clapper clarified that his Meet the Press comment wasn’t meant to give people the idea he had direct knowledge of Comey’s investigation and had concluded it hadn’t uncovered evidence of collusion. Instead, he said he just wasn’t aware that Comey was investigating.
From Mother Jones:
At Monday’s hearing, Clapper pulled this rug out from under the White House and its comrades. He noted that it was standard policy for the FBI not to share with him details about ongoing counterintelligence investigations. And he said he had not been aware of the FBI’s investigation of contacts between Trump associates and Russia that FBI director James Comey revealed weeks ago at a House intelligence committee hearing. Consequently, when Clapper told Todd that he was not familiar with any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, he was speaking accurately. But he essentially told the Senate subcommittee that he was not in a position to know for certain. This piece of spin should now be buried. Trump can no longer hide behind this one Clapper statement.
Instead of reassuring Trump, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said Clapper being kept in the dark about the FBI investigation should worry the president.
Yates, meanwhile, refused to answer questions about whether she’s aware of evidence of collusion, saying her answer would require her to disclose classified information.
The clarification about his Meet the Press comments wasn’t the only part of Clapper’s testimony that should be concerning for Trump. As NBC reports, at another point, the former director of national intelligence suggested there’s also an ongoing investigation into Trump’s business ties to Russia.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Clapper yesterday if he ever found a situation where a Trump business interest in Russia gave him concern, Clapper replied, “Not in the course of the preparation of [last winter’s] intelligence community assessment.” When Graham pressed if he later found a concern, Clapper said, “Sen. Graham, I can’t comment on that because that impacts the investigation.”
Just because you tweet it doesn’t make it true
Despite Clapper’s clarification, Trump once again used his Meet the Press remark to try and undercut the story following Monday’s hearing, even going so far as to it for his Twitter header image.
Trump deleted the suspicious and problematic header image before daybreak on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, on Monday, Republican senators such as Ted Cruz and John Cornyn were much more interested in asking Clapper about Hillary Clinton’s emails and Yates about her refusal to implement Trump’s Muslim ban than they were in getting to the bottom of the Trump-Russia scandal.
|
|
|
FOCUS: Lessons From the Anti-Globalists |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=19108"><span class="small">Joseph Stiglitz, Project Syndicate</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 09 May 2017 11:49 |
|
Stiglitz writes: "The likely victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election has elicited a global sigh of relief. At least Europe is not going down the protectionist path that President Donald Trump is forcing the United States to take."
Joseph Stiglitz. (photo: Virginia Mayo/AP)
Lessons From the Anti-Globalists
By Joseph Stiglitz, Project Syndicate
09 May 17
 he likely victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election has elicited a global sigh of relief. At least Europe is not going down the protectionist path that President Donald Trump is forcing the United States to take.
But advocates of globalization should keep the champagne on ice: protectionists and advocates of “illiberal democracy” are on the rise in many other countries. And the fact that an open bigot and habitual liar could get as many votes as Trump did in the US, and that the far-right Marine Le Pen will be in the run-off vote with Macron on May 7, should be deeply worrying.
Some assume that Trump’s poor management and obvious incompetence should be enough to dent enthusiasm for populist nostrums elsewhere. Likewise, the US Rust Belt voters who supported Trump will almost certainly be worse off in four years, and rational voters surely will understand this.
But it would be a mistake to conclude that discontent with the global economy – at least how it treats large numbers of those in (or formerly in) the middle class – has crested. If the developed liberal democracies maintain status quo policies, displaced workers will continue to be alienated. Many will feel that at least Trump, Le Pen, and their ilk profess to feel their pain. The idea that voters will turn against protectionism and populism of their own accord may be no more than cosmopolitan wishful thinking.
Advocates of liberal market economies need to grasp that many reforms and technological advances may leave some groups – possibly large groups – worse off. In principle, these changes increase economic efficiency, enabling the winners to compensate the losers. But if the losers remain worse off, why should they support globalization and pro-market policies? Indeed, it is in their self-interest to turn to politicians who oppose these changes.
So the lesson should be obvious: In the absence of progressive policies, including strong social-welfare programs, job retraining, and other forms of assistance for individuals and communities left behind by globalization, Trumpian politicians may become a permanent feature of the landscape.
The costs imposed by such politicians are high for all of us, even if they do not fully achieve their protectionist and nativist ambitions, because they prey on fear, inflame bigotry, and thrive on a dangerously polarized us-versus-them approach to governance. Trump has leveled his Twitter attacks against Mexico, China, Germany, Canada, and many others – and the list is sure to grow the longer he is in office. Le Pen has targeted Muslims, but her recent comments denying French responsibility for rounding up Jews during World War II revealed her lingering anti-Semitism.
Deep and perhaps irreparable national cleavages may be the result. In the US, Trump has already diminished respect for the presidency and will most likely leave behind a more divided country.
We must not forget that before the dawn of the Enlightenment, with its embrace of science and freedom, incomes and living standards were stagnant for centuries. But Trump, Le Pen, and the other populists represent the antithesis of Enlightenment values. Without blushing, Trump cites “alternative facts,” denies the scientific method, and proposes massive budget cuts for public research, including on climate change, which he believes is a hoax.
The protectionism advocated by Trump, Le Pen, and others poses a similar threat to the world economy. For three-quarters of a century, there has been an attempt to create a rules-based global economic order, in which goods, services, people, and ideas could move more freely across borders. To the applause from his fellow populists, Trump has thrown a hand grenade into that structure.
Given the insistence of Trump and his acolytes that borders do matter, businesses will think twice as they construct global supply chains. The resulting uncertainty will discourage investment, especially cross-border investment, which will diminish the momentum for a global rules-based system. With less invested in the system, advocates for such a system will have less incentive to push for it.
This will be troublesome for the entire world. Like it or not, humanity will remain globally connected, facing common problems like climate change and the threat of terrorism. The ability and incentive to work cooperatively to solve these problems must be strengthened, not weakened.
The lesson of all of this is something that Scandinavian countries learned long ago. The region’s small countries understood that openness was the key to rapid economic growth and prosperity. But if they were to remain open and democratic, their citizens had to be convinced that significant segments of society would not be left behind.
The welfare state thus became integral to the success of the Scandinavian countries. They understood that the only sustainable prosperity is shared prosperity. It is a lesson that the US and the rest of Europe must now learn.
|
|
FOCUS: It Now Seems Likely That Trump Ordered Michael Flynn to Call the Russian Ambassador |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 09 May 2017 10:29 |
|
Reich writes: "Former acting attorney general Sally Yates told the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism that on Jan. 26 and 27 she warned White House counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn, then Trump's national security adviser, had engaged in 'problematic' conduct with the Russians. The Russians, she added, 'also knew about what Gen. Flynn had done, and the Russians also knew that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice-president and others.'"
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
It Now Seems Likely That Trump Ordered Michael Flynn to Call the Russian Ambassador
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
09 May 17
oday former acting attorney general Sally Yates told the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism that on Jan. 26 and 27 she warned White House counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn, then Trump’s national security adviser, had engaged in “problematic” conduct with the Russians. The Russians, she added, “also knew about what Gen. Flynn had done, and the Russians also knew that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice-president and others.” As a result, she went on, the Russians likely had information that created a situation “where the National Security Advisor could be blackmailed by the Russians.”
Note the sequence of events:
1. On December 29, Obama announces retaliation for Russian hacking of the U.S. elections.
2. That same day, Trump aide Michael Flynn phones Russian Ambassador Kislyak several times.
3. Subsequently, Flynn publicly lies about the call (and also lies about it to Vice President elect Pence).
4. U.S. intelligence agencies have heard Flynn's call, and know of Flynn's lies. They contact Yates, who's then the key Justice Department Official in charge, because they're concerned that Flynn could be blackmailed by the Russians.
5. On January 26 and January 27, Yates warns the White House about Flynn's lies.
6. Trump immediately fires Yates.
7. Two weeks later, Trump fires Flynn as his national security adviser (formally, Flynn resigns).
8. This morning, Trump is so determined to deflect attention from what Yates would say that he suggests she was the one who committed a crime – tweeting “Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Counsel.” (Today, Yates and Clapper both testified that they did not know how the reports about Flynn made their way into the Post.)
The likeliest explanation for this sequence of events is Trump ordered Flynn to call Kislyak on December 29 in order to assure the Russians that Trump was behind them and grateful for their hacking, despite Obama's retaliation.
What do you think?
Sally Yates just publicly confirmed important facts about the Trump-Russia story
|
|
tephen Colbert is in trouble for 
