About halfway through Middlemarch, Casaubon dies.
Just in time to not issue personal orders to control the rest of wife Dorothea's life after his own death, as he intended, but not soon enough to predate a codicil to his will disinheriting her utterly if she ever marries Will Ladislaw, his young cousin to whom marriage would very likely make her happy.
Oh, what will she do, this sympathetic and brilliant but nevertheless absurdly self-sacrificing young woman, so unaccountably accepting of political, social, and even sexual male dominance in ways and to a degree that our author, George Eliot, was not?
Eh?
Monday, December 31, 2018
Will it stick?
The interpretation of the law according to which hush money is a campaign contribution and so may exceed legal limits is not new to the Cohen case.
But Edwards' lawyers argued against that interpretation of the law and it appears never to have actually been the basis of a conviction.
Democrats keep citing the charges against Edwards as support for that theory of the law.
(Did Democrats accept that theory of the law, back in the day? Did Republicans who now reject it accept it when it was Democrat Edwards on the hook?)
The grand jury bought it but apparently not the petit.
A lot of people will think this is bullshit, so it better not be the only charge in a bill of impeachment.
Edwards trial
The Justice Department has dropped its prosecution of former Sen. John Edwards over nearly $1 million in payments his backers made to support his pregnant mistress during the 2008 presidential campaign.
The formal dismissal of charges was filed in federal court in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday.
The decision came less than two weeks after Edwards’s trial on the campaign finance-related charges ended when a jury deadlocked on five felony counts and voted to acquit him on one charge.
. . . .
“We knew that this case — like all campaign finance cases — would be challenging. But it is our duty to bring hard cases when we believe that the facts and the law support charging a candidate for high office with a crime,” Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny Breuer said in a statement.
Breuer did not elaborate on prosecutors’ reasons for abandoning the case.
He simply noted the jury’s division on most counts and said: “In the interest of justice, we have decided not to retry Mr. Edwards on those counts.”
Edwards’s defense team welcomed the decision to drop the case.
“While John has repeatedly admitted to his sins, he has also consistently asserted, as we demonstrated at the trial, that he did not violate any campaign law nor even imagined that any campaign laws could apply,” defense lawyers Abbe Lowell, Allison Van Laningham and Alan Duncan said in a joint statement.
“We are confident that the outcome of any new trial would have been the same. We are very glad that, after living under this cloud for over three years, John and his family can have their lives back and enjoy the peace they deserve.”
A grand jury indicted the Democrat and two-time presidential candidate last year on charges that he illegally received campaign donations from his 2008 finance chairman Fred Baron and wealthy heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon.
The funds, spent on private jet travel, luxury hotels and housing for Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, never passed through campaign accounts.
However, prosecutors said they amounted to donations to Edwards’s campaign because they were intended to prevent damage to his presidential bid by hiding the extramarital affair from the media.
Too, Russiagate charges will work only if whatever the Russians did that Trump knew of in advance was actually illegal.
And that will work best if the crime is the hacking rather than mere pseudonymous use of social media that would have been perfectly legal if done by Americans.
It is really absurd and not a good idea to urge that blogging, tweeting, or other uses of social media can themselves be counted as either campaigning or making some sort of in-kind campaign contribution.
Or that it is when the Russians do it, but somehow not when you or I do it.
And is it "conspiracy" if Trump or his campaign did nothing to advance or aid in any illegal activity, perhaps even the hacking, but only knew of it before and when it happened?
Too, nothing he did really amounts to treason, however annoying to some globalists or to some Democrats.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 reads in pertinent part:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Not even in those remote and nearly inaccessible possible worlds in which Trump actually and in just so many explicit words did sell certain aspects of US foreign policy to Russia in return for help in the campaign or other inducements.
I hope and believe that doing that would be criminal and impeachable.
But it would not be treason, even if we go with plain English and insist a foreign country can be an enemy even when we are not actually at war with it, so that giving such a power aid or comfort can be counted as treason.
The US is not and has never been at war with Russia.
And Trump and all his supporters and even some of his opponents, both on the left and on the right, will argue that the premise of Trump's Buchananist foreign policy is that Russia is not and need not be an actual outright enemy of the US, despite conflicts between us over this or that.
Whether or not it is or becomes an actual enemy of, say, Latvia or Ukraine.
Too, if Trump's policies or preferences respecting NATO, Russia, or anything else in foreign affairs contain or amount to treason then Buchananist foreign policy, neo-isolationist policy, Rand Paul's foreign policy, and any foreign policy that is less confrontational vis-a-vis Russia than Hillary Clinton's would be treason, also.
And anyone who implements such policies, or perhaps even advocates them, is a traitor.
Russian participation on Trump's behalf in the campaign, or any other alleged quid pro quo, though possibly accounting for motive, would be irrelevant to the substance of that charge against him.
And Trump's moves would have been treason even if the Russians had never lifted a finger to help him.
But all of that is absurd on its face.
Do we really want to say it can be treason for an American politician - or indeed anyone else - to advocate changes in America policy?
Even ending a war already underway?
Can it be treason for an American politician to run on ending a war, or reversing an alliance, or on undoing an alliance, and then keep his promise once elected?
That's not a view any of us ought to be supporting.
And ironically it well deserves to be called McCarthyism.
But Edwards' lawyers argued against that interpretation of the law and it appears never to have actually been the basis of a conviction.
Democrats keep citing the charges against Edwards as support for that theory of the law.
(Did Democrats accept that theory of the law, back in the day? Did Republicans who now reject it accept it when it was Democrat Edwards on the hook?)
The grand jury bought it but apparently not the petit.
A lot of people will think this is bullshit, so it better not be the only charge in a bill of impeachment.
Edwards trial
The Justice Department has dropped its prosecution of former Sen. John Edwards over nearly $1 million in payments his backers made to support his pregnant mistress during the 2008 presidential campaign.
The formal dismissal of charges was filed in federal court in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday.
The decision came less than two weeks after Edwards’s trial on the campaign finance-related charges ended when a jury deadlocked on five felony counts and voted to acquit him on one charge.
. . . .
“We knew that this case — like all campaign finance cases — would be challenging. But it is our duty to bring hard cases when we believe that the facts and the law support charging a candidate for high office with a crime,” Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny Breuer said in a statement.
Breuer did not elaborate on prosecutors’ reasons for abandoning the case.
He simply noted the jury’s division on most counts and said: “In the interest of justice, we have decided not to retry Mr. Edwards on those counts.”
Edwards’s defense team welcomed the decision to drop the case.
“While John has repeatedly admitted to his sins, he has also consistently asserted, as we demonstrated at the trial, that he did not violate any campaign law nor even imagined that any campaign laws could apply,” defense lawyers Abbe Lowell, Allison Van Laningham and Alan Duncan said in a joint statement.
“We are confident that the outcome of any new trial would have been the same. We are very glad that, after living under this cloud for over three years, John and his family can have their lives back and enjoy the peace they deserve.”
A grand jury indicted the Democrat and two-time presidential candidate last year on charges that he illegally received campaign donations from his 2008 finance chairman Fred Baron and wealthy heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon.
The funds, spent on private jet travel, luxury hotels and housing for Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, never passed through campaign accounts.
However, prosecutors said they amounted to donations to Edwards’s campaign because they were intended to prevent damage to his presidential bid by hiding the extramarital affair from the media.
Too, Russiagate charges will work only if whatever the Russians did that Trump knew of in advance was actually illegal.
And that will work best if the crime is the hacking rather than mere pseudonymous use of social media that would have been perfectly legal if done by Americans.
It is really absurd and not a good idea to urge that blogging, tweeting, or other uses of social media can themselves be counted as either campaigning or making some sort of in-kind campaign contribution.
Or that it is when the Russians do it, but somehow not when you or I do it.
And is it "conspiracy" if Trump or his campaign did nothing to advance or aid in any illegal activity, perhaps even the hacking, but only knew of it before and when it happened?
Too, nothing he did really amounts to treason, however annoying to some globalists or to some Democrats.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 reads in pertinent part:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Not even in those remote and nearly inaccessible possible worlds in which Trump actually and in just so many explicit words did sell certain aspects of US foreign policy to Russia in return for help in the campaign or other inducements.
I hope and believe that doing that would be criminal and impeachable.
But it would not be treason, even if we go with plain English and insist a foreign country can be an enemy even when we are not actually at war with it, so that giving such a power aid or comfort can be counted as treason.
The US is not and has never been at war with Russia.
And Trump and all his supporters and even some of his opponents, both on the left and on the right, will argue that the premise of Trump's Buchananist foreign policy is that Russia is not and need not be an actual outright enemy of the US, despite conflicts between us over this or that.
Whether or not it is or becomes an actual enemy of, say, Latvia or Ukraine.
Too, if Trump's policies or preferences respecting NATO, Russia, or anything else in foreign affairs contain or amount to treason then Buchananist foreign policy, neo-isolationist policy, Rand Paul's foreign policy, and any foreign policy that is less confrontational vis-a-vis Russia than Hillary Clinton's would be treason, also.
And anyone who implements such policies, or perhaps even advocates them, is a traitor.
Russian participation on Trump's behalf in the campaign, or any other alleged quid pro quo, though possibly accounting for motive, would be irrelevant to the substance of that charge against him.
And Trump's moves would have been treason even if the Russians had never lifted a finger to help him.
But all of that is absurd on its face.
Do we really want to say it can be treason for an American politician - or indeed anyone else - to advocate changes in America policy?
Even ending a war already underway?
Can it be treason for an American politician to run on ending a war, or reversing an alliance, or on undoing an alliance, and then keep his promise once elected?
That's not a view any of us ought to be supporting.
And ironically it well deserves to be called McCarthyism.
Trump exemplifies the massive hypocrisy of the Republican Party
Trump issues executive order freezing federal workers' pay in 2019
Partly this is just the asshole right's war on government.
But mostly it's the usual revolting hypocrisy of a party committed to slashing taxes on behalf of the rich and corporations and then slashing what those taxes pay for in deference to the plutocracy's preference that its capitalism be as gloveless as it was under McKinley.
"Aw, shucks. The government just can't afford it."
And his claim of statutory authority to do this is almost a big a whopper as his claim that trade is inherently a national security issue, and so he can invoke his legal authority to impose tariffs when national security is involved to impose tariffs ad lib.
Democrats looking for grounds for impeachment, are you paying attention?
President Donald Trump issued an executive order Friday freezing federal workers' pay for 2019, following through on a proposal he announced earlier in the year.
The move, which nixes a 2.1% across-the-board pay raise that was set to take effect in January, comes as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are expecting to begin the new year furloughed or working without pay because of a partial government shutdown.
Trump told lawmakers he planned to scrap the 2019 pay bump for federal workers in August, saying the federal budget couldn't support it.
The move does not affect a 2.6% pay increase for US troops next year that was passed as part of the massive defense spending bill Trump signed in August.
. . . .
In a letter to House and Senate leaders in August, Trump described the pay increase as "inappropriate."
"We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases," the President wrote.
Trump also stressed that a pay freeze would not affect the federal government's ability to attract qualified workers.
Partly this is just the asshole right's war on government.
But mostly it's the usual revolting hypocrisy of a party committed to slashing taxes on behalf of the rich and corporations and then slashing what those taxes pay for in deference to the plutocracy's preference that its capitalism be as gloveless as it was under McKinley.
"Aw, shucks. The government just can't afford it."
And his claim of statutory authority to do this is almost a big a whopper as his claim that trade is inherently a national security issue, and so he can invoke his legal authority to impose tariffs when national security is involved to impose tariffs ad lib.
Democrats looking for grounds for impeachment, are you paying attention?
President Donald Trump issued an executive order Friday freezing federal workers' pay for 2019, following through on a proposal he announced earlier in the year.
The move, which nixes a 2.1% across-the-board pay raise that was set to take effect in January, comes as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are expecting to begin the new year furloughed or working without pay because of a partial government shutdown.
Trump told lawmakers he planned to scrap the 2019 pay bump for federal workers in August, saying the federal budget couldn't support it.
In addition to the 2.1% pay increase, the executive order also cancels a yearly adjustment of paychecks based on the region of the country where workers are posted, called the "locality pay increase," that was due to take effect in January.
The move does not affect a 2.6% pay increase for US troops next year that was passed as part of the massive defense spending bill Trump signed in August.
. . . .
In a letter to House and Senate leaders in August, Trump described the pay increase as "inappropriate."
"We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases," the President wrote.
Trump also stressed that a pay freeze would not affect the federal government's ability to attract qualified workers.
He cited his statutory authority to adjust pay out of "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare."
A hat in the ring
Elizabeth Warren launches exploratory committee ahead of likely 2020 presidential run
If nominated I will of course vote for her, since the Republican opposition will inevitably be a Trumpist at worse - and likely Bozo in person - and, though perhaps without the label, a Randian radical bare-knuckle capitalist committed to the destruction of every jot of progressivism in government at best.
And, in the latter case, very likely also opposed, though much more quietly, to all or nearly all of the achievements of liberal courts since Warren in kicking Christian social and sexual morality out of the law.
We are very far from the days when Nixon ran as a big government liberal while pointing to McGovern as too far left and radical.
And was telling the truth, though his history of anti-communism in the Congress enabled his opponents and enemies to deny him that label, despite the hostility toward him and his domestic politics of movement conservatives of the time.
But I hope she is not nominated.
More anti-capitalist, anti-white, and anti-American than Bernie and at least as misandrist as Hillary, she amply deserves the adjectives "shrill" and "left-wing", and perhaps also "socialist".
And while Bernie's agenda was quite popular I still have reservations about single payor giving too much - and too exclusive - market power to a government funded and controlled institutional consumer of medical services by making it effectively the only consumer of medical services.
I do not want the direction of medical or pharmacy research dictated by the state according to somebody's political or moral agenda, any more than R&D in any other part of the economy.
Nor do I agree with her mucking around with experiments in worker control and the like.
If nominated I will of course vote for her, since the Republican opposition will inevitably be a Trumpist at worse - and likely Bozo in person - and, though perhaps without the label, a Randian radical bare-knuckle capitalist committed to the destruction of every jot of progressivism in government at best.
And, in the latter case, very likely also opposed, though much more quietly, to all or nearly all of the achievements of liberal courts since Warren in kicking Christian social and sexual morality out of the law.
We are very far from the days when Nixon ran as a big government liberal while pointing to McGovern as too far left and radical.
And was telling the truth, though his history of anti-communism in the Congress enabled his opponents and enemies to deny him that label, despite the hostility toward him and his domestic politics of movement conservatives of the time.
But I hope she is not nominated.
More anti-capitalist, anti-white, and anti-American than Bernie and at least as misandrist as Hillary, she amply deserves the adjectives "shrill" and "left-wing", and perhaps also "socialist".
And while Bernie's agenda was quite popular I still have reservations about single payor giving too much - and too exclusive - market power to a government funded and controlled institutional consumer of medical services by making it effectively the only consumer of medical services.
I do not want the direction of medical or pharmacy research dictated by the state according to somebody's political or moral agenda, any more than R&D in any other part of the economy.
Nor do I agree with her mucking around with experiments in worker control and the like.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Monk
Why did they from first to last dress Bitty Schram like a TV street whore?
In definite contrast with her successor.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Looks like the GOP is right on this matter
Fight over Lindsey Williams' residency brings Pa. Senate into uncommon political territory
Looks like she just missed by about a month.
If she were not seated and a special election were scheduled, would she be eligible to run in that election?
Would she win?
Looks like she just missed by about a month.
If she were not seated and a special election were scheduled, would she be eligible to run in that election?
Would she win?
He can sign the bill he said he'd sign in the first place, any time.
The bill without the wall money that passed unanimously in the senate and passed the house, too, all because the Duce said he'd sign it, is still there.
And the Democrats in both houses agreed to it.
He already has the deal on his desk that the Democrats agreed to.
Their offer is on his desk.
He can sign it and end his shutdown any time.
Mulvaney blames Dems
He claims it's up to them to make a new offer that will take them closer to the president.
The deal on Trump's desk is as close to him as they want to be, thanks.
The president is now threatening to "shut down the border," probably illegally.
His shutdown and his every threat are threats to shoot the American people in the foot if he does not get his way.
Fuck him.
Impeach the bastard.
“We need folks to talk with us. We need folks to discuss with us,” Mulvaney, currently the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Fox & Friends, the president’s preferred news program.
Mulvaney lamented Democrats’ stubbornness on Trump’s proposed border wall along the southern U.S. border, which the White House has insisted is necessary to keep the country safe, ignoring calls from both Democrats and border state Republicans who say a massive barrier like the one the president has proposed would be ineffective and costly.
“It still strikes me very unusual that the Democrats did not provide a counteroffer to our last discussion. They simply left town,” he continued, referring to Republicans’ proposal of $5 billion in wall funding, which Democrats roundly rejected.
“The president is here. The president canceled his plans. Where are [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer, where are [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi? They’re not talking now. They won’t until after the new Congress is sworn in.”
My mistake. It's not on his desk. The house didn't bother to vote on the deal Bozo personally approved after the senate unanimously passed it and then the Duce said he would not sign it or anything without five billion for his wall.
So it's his own fault there is nothing on his desk for him to sign.
His and Paul Ryan's.
And the Democrats in both houses agreed to it.
He already has the deal on his desk that the Democrats agreed to.
Their offer is on his desk.
He can sign it and end his shutdown any time.
Mulvaney blames Dems
He claims it's up to them to make a new offer that will take them closer to the president.
The deal on Trump's desk is as close to him as they want to be, thanks.
The president is now threatening to "shut down the border," probably illegally.
His shutdown and his every threat are threats to shoot the American people in the foot if he does not get his way.
Fuck him.
Impeach the bastard.
“We need folks to talk with us. We need folks to discuss with us,” Mulvaney, currently the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Fox & Friends, the president’s preferred news program.
Mulvaney lamented Democrats’ stubbornness on Trump’s proposed border wall along the southern U.S. border, which the White House has insisted is necessary to keep the country safe, ignoring calls from both Democrats and border state Republicans who say a massive barrier like the one the president has proposed would be ineffective and costly.
“It still strikes me very unusual that the Democrats did not provide a counteroffer to our last discussion. They simply left town,” he continued, referring to Republicans’ proposal of $5 billion in wall funding, which Democrats roundly rejected.
“The president is here. The president canceled his plans. Where are [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer, where are [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi? They’re not talking now. They won’t until after the new Congress is sworn in.”
My mistake. It's not on his desk. The house didn't bother to vote on the deal Bozo personally approved after the senate unanimously passed it and then the Duce said he would not sign it or anything without five billion for his wall.
So it's his own fault there is nothing on his desk for him to sign.
His and Paul Ryan's.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
If they could vote again on Brexit . . . .
The Brit classe politique is discovering reasons why this decision should never have hung on a single, simple majority plebiscite, dressed up as reasons for a second referendum.
Is Canceling Brexit Now Inevitable?
As matters stand today, a new British referendum on leaving the European Union would produce a clear majority for remaining a member, regardless of how the votes were counted or the questions were asked.
And with the only two Brexit options set to be rejected next month, the questions are increasingly likely to be asked.
. . . .
As the impossibility of legislating either No Deal or May’s deal has become apparent, the aura of inevitability that has protected Brexit from serious challenge since 2016 is vanishing, and soon the sense of inevitability may swing in favor of a new referendum.
This shift has already started in the British media.
Having spent the past two years denouncing anyone who challenged Brexit as “enemies of the people” and a traitor to democracy, the BBC, TheTimes, and other influential media organs have suddenly remembered that an essential principle of democracy is that voters have the right to change their minds.
. . . .
The strongest objection to a second referendum is that the different counting systems could give very different results, at least in theory, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the entire process.
But this objection turns out to be theoretically valid only if public opinion is divided fairly evenly between the three possible outcomes.
In practice, opinion now seems to be shifting to the point where clear answers are likely, regardless of how the questions are asked.
In the first detailed poll of all three Brexit options, conducted by YouGov in early December, a standard first-past-the-post vote would result in Remain winning a huge 54% absolute majority, against 28% support for No Deal and 18% for May’s Deal.
In a simple choice against May’s deal, the majority for Remain would be even bigger, at 62%.
And in a preferential vote count that redistributed the second preferences of May’s supporters, Remain would still win by a decisive margin of 57% to 43%.
Of course, voters could change their minds in a referendum campaign.
But as matters stand today, a new referendum would produce a clear majority for Britain remaining an EU member, regardless of how the votes were counted or the questions were asked.
This suggests that the force of inevitability is starting to move against Brexit.
“We all know that Brexit has to be canceled,” voters may soon be saying, “so why don’t the politicians just get on with it?”
Is Canceling Brexit Now Inevitable?
As matters stand today, a new British referendum on leaving the European Union would produce a clear majority for remaining a member, regardless of how the votes were counted or the questions were asked.
And with the only two Brexit options set to be rejected next month, the questions are increasingly likely to be asked.
. . . .
As the impossibility of legislating either No Deal or May’s deal has become apparent, the aura of inevitability that has protected Brexit from serious challenge since 2016 is vanishing, and soon the sense of inevitability may swing in favor of a new referendum.
This shift has already started in the British media.
Having spent the past two years denouncing anyone who challenged Brexit as “enemies of the people” and a traitor to democracy, the BBC, TheTimes, and other influential media organs have suddenly remembered that an essential principle of democracy is that voters have the right to change their minds.
. . . .
The strongest objection to a second referendum is that the different counting systems could give very different results, at least in theory, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the entire process.
But this objection turns out to be theoretically valid only if public opinion is divided fairly evenly between the three possible outcomes.
In practice, opinion now seems to be shifting to the point where clear answers are likely, regardless of how the questions are asked.
In the first detailed poll of all three Brexit options, conducted by YouGov in early December, a standard first-past-the-post vote would result in Remain winning a huge 54% absolute majority, against 28% support for No Deal and 18% for May’s Deal.
In a simple choice against May’s deal, the majority for Remain would be even bigger, at 62%.
And in a preferential vote count that redistributed the second preferences of May’s supporters, Remain would still win by a decisive margin of 57% to 43%.
Of course, voters could change their minds in a referendum campaign.
But as matters stand today, a new referendum would produce a clear majority for Britain remaining an EU member, regardless of how the votes were counted or the questions were asked.
This suggests that the force of inevitability is starting to move against Brexit.
“We all know that Brexit has to be canceled,” voters may soon be saying, “so why don’t the politicians just get on with it?”
Trump's mini-me at State has embraced his Buchananite nationalism almost entirely
Pompeo Questions the Value of International Groups Like U.N. and E.U.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke out against several treaties and institutions, including the United Nations and the European Union, during a speech in Brussels.
In a major speech on Tuesday [December 4], Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to explain one of the abiding conundrums of the Trump administration: How does a nationalist lead on the international stage?
The answer, he said, is to revamp or jettison some treaties and institutions while bolstering others.
Among the institutions that Mr. Pompeo criticized were the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States and the African Union.
But he embraced NATO, which President Trump has harshly criticized, as an “indispensable institution.”
. . . .
The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization also came in for sharp criticism.
“International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated,” he said.
After the short speech, Mr. Pompeo took no questions.
Did Kissinger get it right or not?
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke out against several treaties and institutions, including the United Nations and the European Union, during a speech in Brussels.
In a major speech on Tuesday [December 4], Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to explain one of the abiding conundrums of the Trump administration: How does a nationalist lead on the international stage?
The answer, he said, is to revamp or jettison some treaties and institutions while bolstering others.
Among the institutions that Mr. Pompeo criticized were the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States and the African Union.
But he embraced NATO, which President Trump has harshly criticized, as an “indispensable institution.”
. . . .
The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization also came in for sharp criticism.
“International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated,” he said.
After the short speech, Mr. Pompeo took no questions.
Did Kissinger get it right or not?
Last week I was browsing through Henry Kissinger’s 2014 book, World Order, when the news broke that Jim Mattis, the US defence secretary, had resigned, sending a shockwave of new uncertainties across Europe.
It made these lines from Kissinger all the more striking:
“The United States has every reason from history and geopolitics to bolster the European Union and prevent its drifting off in a geopolitical vacuum; the United States, if separated from Europe in politics, economics and defence, would become geopolitically an island off the shores of Eurasia, and Europe itself could turn into an appendage to the reaches of Asia and the Middle East.”
One key sentence in Mattis’s resignation letter pointed to the importance of the US respecting its allies.
It read like a final verdict on something Europeans had been dreading ever since Donald Trump’s election but were wary of acknowledging: the utter indifference of this American leader to postwar alliances.
A US “separated from Europe” has suddenly become more of a reality.
. . . .
The spectre that’s haunting Europe today is multifaceted: a Trump‑Brexit‑Putin nexus has taken shape.
With the Brexit countdown approaching and European parliament elections due in May, things look ominous, and Mattis’s message will have done little to reassure anyone.
But much could change if Brexit is somehow halted.
. . . .
This year, Trump’s hostility to the EU (he calls it a “foe”) morphed into a systematic onslaught.
One shocking moment came when Trump’s national security adviser Mike Pompeo gave a speech in Brussels this month lambasting the European project.
This year, Trump’s hostility to the EU (he calls it a “foe”) morphed into a systematic onslaught.
One shocking moment came when Trump’s national security adviser Mike Pompeo gave a speech in Brussels this month lambasting the European project.
Meanwhile, both Trump and Putin have made clear they want the Brexit train wreck to run its course.
The US president has openly encouraged a no-deal British departure from the EU, and last week Putin mused that Theresa May should “fulfil the will of the people”.
These men’s motives may vary but the endgame they seek – sowing division – is much the same, and it’s just as obsessive.
Trump is interested in an isolated UK and a disembowelled EU which would no longer be able to set rules and standards in trade.
Putin wants to secure geopolitical gains for Russia in Europe in a quest for a sphere of influence, as revenge for defeat in the cold war.
. . . .
Brexit has so far united continental Europe much more than it has divided it.
Brexit is also a lose-lose project on which more and more Britons are apparently starting to turn their backs.
Neither Trump nor Putin are going away any time soon.
Brexit, on the other hand, increasingly looks like a fading prospect.
. . . .
But the biggest boon to all Europeans – and the biggest blow to both Trump and Putin’s calculations – would surely come if Brexit didn’t happen at all.
This could change the entire narrative about a continent beholden to hostile forces.
In fact, a Brexit reversal could be Europe’s finest hour, after a decade of crises.
If Britain changed its mind and remained in the European club, it would save itself and Europe from unnecessary havoc and absurdity: a cause for celebration whatever side of the Channel you live on.
If you judge the EU by the very nature of its enemies – autocrats or would-be autocrats – then surely putting an end to Brexit takes on a wider meaning than just securing market access.
Trump and Putin have placed high stakes on Brexit as something that would vindicate their world view.
Brexit is very much part of their project. Now is the time to disappoint them.
Not one hint from the Guardian columnist on how that might happen.
Mattis and Trump both urge that the United States cannot be "the world's policeman," but they mean very different things by that.
For Buchananist Trump the cliche expresses rejection of the postwar/Cold War alliances, supranational institutions, and global institutions the US led in building and in which the US still participates.
For Mattis it is a reason for embracing, expanding, and strengthening them all.
More on Trump's Buchananist commitments can be found in the New Yorker.
Expect more this from the Duce in the new year, when Democrats in the house are expected to pretty much put a stop to his domestic agenda.
He will turn to foreign policy, where presidents are stronger than the congress and the courts.
He will be a wrecking ball.
Mattis and Trump both urge that the United States cannot be "the world's policeman," but they mean very different things by that.
For Buchananist Trump the cliche expresses rejection of the postwar/Cold War alliances, supranational institutions, and global institutions the US led in building and in which the US still participates.
For Mattis it is a reason for embracing, expanding, and strengthening them all.
More on Trump's Buchananist commitments can be found in the New Yorker.
Expect more this from the Duce in the new year, when Democrats in the house are expected to pretty much put a stop to his domestic agenda.
He will turn to foreign policy, where presidents are stronger than the congress and the courts.
He will be a wrecking ball.
How Trumpism is helping the forgotten man - aka Archie Bunker - defeat globalization and bring back the good old days
Trump says he isn't happy with General Motors' decision to shed 14,700 jobs
General Motors has announced it will halt production at five North American facilities and cut 14,700 jobs as it deals with slowing sedan sales and the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs.
More than 6,000 blue-collar jobs will be hit by GM plans to stop production at a car plant in Canada and two more in Ohio and Michigan.
Two transmission plants in the US will also be mothballed, putting the future of those plants in doubt.
The cuts will also include 15% of GM’s 54,000 white-collar workforce, about 8,100 people, and come as 18,000 GM workers have been asked to accept voluntary redundancy.
Trump, who won over voters in many of the states affected by GM’s decision by promising to save their jobs, told reporters he was not happy with the decision.
“We don’t like it,” he told reporters.
“This country has done a lot for General Motors. They better get back to Ohio, and soon.”
Or else what, one has to wonder?
. . . .
Cost pressures on GM and other car companies and suppliers have increased as demand has waned for traditional sedans.
The company has also said tariffs on imported steel, imposed earlier this year by the Trump administration, have cost it $1bn.
. . . .
GM has internally debated for months how to address shrinking car demand, a person briefed on the matter said, and the issue is certain to re-emerge when GM holds contract talks next year with the UAW.
The company has begun what is expected to be a long and expensive transition to a new transportation model that embraces electrified and automated vehicles, many of which will be shared rather than owned.
GM signaled the latest belt-tightening in late October when it offered buyouts to 50,000 salaried employees in North America.
Lagging US car sales has seen several car plants fall to just one shift, including its Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly plant and Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant.
Rivals Ford and Fiat Chrysler have curtailed US car production.
Ford said in April it planned to stop building nearly all cars in North America.
'A kick in the stomach'
In a speech in nearby Youngstown in July 2017, Trump promised to bring back auto jobs.
“They’re all coming back,” he said.
“Don’t move, don’t sell your house.”
Trump has criticized GM about layoffs, but the Lordstown workers say he hasn’t done enough.
. . . .
The workers are also angry that GM, helped by the $1tn corporate tax [cut] enacted last year, has spent nearly $14bn on stock buybacks since 2015, money that could have been invested in developing next-generation vehicles.
And then there is the indirect protectionism of politicians representing affected areas, abundantly willing to shove the extra costs of cars made by the Americans on whom their jobs depend onto the backs of other Americans on whom their jobs do not depend.
There’s a bipartisan push to save the plant.
Governor John Kasich, a Republican, Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Senator Rob Portman, a Republican, have pressed GM’s chief executive, Mary Barra, to find a way to keep the plant open.
Brown, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2020, has urged Trump to back legislation he has introduced that would give consumers $3,500 rebates on American-made cars.
General Motors has announced it will halt production at five North American facilities and cut 14,700 jobs as it deals with slowing sedan sales and the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs.
More than 6,000 blue-collar jobs will be hit by GM plans to stop production at a car plant in Canada and two more in Ohio and Michigan.
Two transmission plants in the US will also be mothballed, putting the future of those plants in doubt.
The cuts will also include 15% of GM’s 54,000 white-collar workforce, about 8,100 people, and come as 18,000 GM workers have been asked to accept voluntary redundancy.
Trump, who won over voters in many of the states affected by GM’s decision by promising to save their jobs, told reporters he was not happy with the decision.
“We don’t like it,” he told reporters.
“This country has done a lot for General Motors. They better get back to Ohio, and soon.”
Or else what, one has to wonder?
. . . .
Cost pressures on GM and other car companies and suppliers have increased as demand has waned for traditional sedans.
The company has also said tariffs on imported steel, imposed earlier this year by the Trump administration, have cost it $1bn.
. . . .
GM has internally debated for months how to address shrinking car demand, a person briefed on the matter said, and the issue is certain to re-emerge when GM holds contract talks next year with the UAW.
The company has begun what is expected to be a long and expensive transition to a new transportation model that embraces electrified and automated vehicles, many of which will be shared rather than owned.
GM signaled the latest belt-tightening in late October when it offered buyouts to 50,000 salaried employees in North America.
Lagging US car sales has seen several car plants fall to just one shift, including its Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly plant and Lordstown, Ohio, assembly plant.
Rivals Ford and Fiat Chrysler have curtailed US car production.
Ford said in April it planned to stop building nearly all cars in North America.
'A kick in the stomach'
In a speech in nearby Youngstown in July 2017, Trump promised to bring back auto jobs.
“They’re all coming back,” he said.
“Don’t move, don’t sell your house.”
Trump has criticized GM about layoffs, but the Lordstown workers say he hasn’t done enough.
. . . .
The workers are also angry that GM, helped by the $1tn corporate tax [cut] enacted last year, has spent nearly $14bn on stock buybacks since 2015, money that could have been invested in developing next-generation vehicles.
And then there is the indirect protectionism of politicians representing affected areas, abundantly willing to shove the extra costs of cars made by the Americans on whom their jobs depend onto the backs of other Americans on whom their jobs do not depend.
There’s a bipartisan push to save the plant.
Governor John Kasich, a Republican, Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Senator Rob Portman, a Republican, have pressed GM’s chief executive, Mary Barra, to find a way to keep the plant open.
Brown, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2020, has urged Trump to back legislation he has introduced that would give consumers $3,500 rebates on American-made cars.
They did say he is a moron
The soi-disant stable genius who refuses to use a secure phone fucks up, again.
Trump 'accidentally reveals location and identities of US Navy Seals in Iraq'
Not a surprise from the blockhead in the White House.
After making a holiday visit to US troops in Iraq, Donald Trump posted a video on Twitter of himself posing with Navy Seals – apparently revealing the special ops team’s deployment in the country, which is typically kept secret.
Trump’s video shows him with service members who appear to be part of Seal Team Five, whose faces are not covered or blurred, Newsweek reported.
Defense department officials told the magazine that information about where Seal teams are deployed is almost always classified.
Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to declassify the information, but typically the faces of individual special operations service members are blurred in official photos and videos to shield their identities.
He does his declassifying by blunders, for preference.
Trump 'accidentally reveals location and identities of US Navy Seals in Iraq'
Not a surprise from the blockhead in the White House.
After making a holiday visit to US troops in Iraq, Donald Trump posted a video on Twitter of himself posing with Navy Seals – apparently revealing the special ops team’s deployment in the country, which is typically kept secret.
Trump’s video shows him with service members who appear to be part of Seal Team Five, whose faces are not covered or blurred, Newsweek reported.
Defense department officials told the magazine that information about where Seal teams are deployed is almost always classified.
Trump, as commander in chief, has the authority to declassify the information, but typically the faces of individual special operations service members are blurred in official photos and videos to shield their identities.
He does his declassifying by blunders, for preference.
The only one I know of is Rand Paul, libertarian Republican senator
Blaming everybody but Trump for the inevitable results of idiot and cruel Trump's draconian, vicious, and probably illegal border policies.
Of course, her words are intended to place blame on the Democrats and express the resentments of the white Nativists who love the wall.
And the only open borders politician I know of is Rand Paul, a Republican.
US borders 'pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders': Nielsen
Declaring the U.S. immigration system had been "pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday ordered mandatory medical checks on all children under the age of 10 in U.S. custody and said she would send U.S. Coast Guard medical personnel to the border to help.
Her statement came after a second child died this month after being in U.S. custody.
Nielsen said that prior to the two deaths, it had been more than a decade since a child in died after being in U.S. custody. Officials said six adults in U.S. custody died in 2018.
"Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders," Nielsen wrote.
"Smugglers, traffickers, and their own parents put these minors at risk by embarking on the dangerous and arduous journey north.
"This crisis is exacerbated by the increase in persons who are entering our custody suffering from severe respiratory illnesses or exhibit some other illness upon apprehension," she said, noting that she also has asked federal health officials to investigate an uptick in illnesses among migrants.
The change in procedures come as border authorities reported that some 24,000 kids have arrived at the border this month alone.
Additionally, the area near El Paso, Texas was grappling with a tenfold increase in migration just as flu season gets under way.
Migrants are often transported in close quarters to stations designed to house adult males, not large families.
Elsewhere among white Nativist Republicans.
Failed GOP candidate known for 'deportation bus' out on bond after being charged with insurance fraud, falsely reporting a crime
Of course, her words are intended to place blame on the Democrats and express the resentments of the white Nativists who love the wall.
And the only open borders politician I know of is Rand Paul, a Republican.
US borders 'pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders': Nielsen
Declaring the U.S. immigration system had been "pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday ordered mandatory medical checks on all children under the age of 10 in U.S. custody and said she would send U.S. Coast Guard medical personnel to the border to help.
Her statement came after a second child died this month after being in U.S. custody.
Nielsen said that prior to the two deaths, it had been more than a decade since a child in died after being in U.S. custody. Officials said six adults in U.S. custody died in 2018.
"Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders," Nielsen wrote.
"Smugglers, traffickers, and their own parents put these minors at risk by embarking on the dangerous and arduous journey north.
"This crisis is exacerbated by the increase in persons who are entering our custody suffering from severe respiratory illnesses or exhibit some other illness upon apprehension," she said, noting that she also has asked federal health officials to investigate an uptick in illnesses among migrants.
The change in procedures come as border authorities reported that some 24,000 kids have arrived at the border this month alone.
Additionally, the area near El Paso, Texas was grappling with a tenfold increase in migration just as flu season gets under way.
Migrants are often transported in close quarters to stations designed to house adult males, not large families.
Elsewhere among white Nativist Republicans.
Failed GOP candidate known for 'deportation bus' out on bond after being charged with insurance fraud, falsely reporting a crime
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Why responsible doctors discourage genuinely unnecessary surgeries
More than 3,000 patients at New Jersey surgery center possibly exposed to HIV, hepatitis
You would hope hospitals would be safer than your own home, as regards health threats.
You would be wrong.
You would hope hospitals would be safer than your own home, as regards health threats.
You would be wrong.
The founders did not anticipate such stupid malice
Donald Trump insists shutdown will not end unless Congress funds border wall
He loathes the separation of powers and resents checks and balances as a personal insult and an attack on America.
What a disgraceful asshole those fuckwit Republicans and their voters put in the White House.
They and the fuckwit Electoral College members who should have been faithless for the good of the country.
They should impeach him for this, even if only for this.
How is sabotaging the government he is supposed to head not a "high crime"?
And who is surprised he is the Grinch?
Christmas cheer: Trump tells boy that believing in Santa at seven is 'marginal
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump on Christmas Eve took calls from children anxious to find out where Santa was on his gift-giving journey.
In one conversation, Trump asked a 7-year-old named Coleman: “Are you still a believer in Santa?”
He listened for a moment before adding: “Because at 7, it’s marginal, right?”
Trump listened again and chuckled before saying: “Well, you just enjoy yourself.”
He loathes the separation of powers and resents checks and balances as a personal insult and an attack on America.
What a disgraceful asshole those fuckwit Republicans and their voters put in the White House.
They and the fuckwit Electoral College members who should have been faithless for the good of the country.
They should impeach him for this, even if only for this.
How is sabotaging the government he is supposed to head not a "high crime"?
And who is surprised he is the Grinch?
Christmas cheer: Trump tells boy that believing in Santa at seven is 'marginal
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump on Christmas Eve took calls from children anxious to find out where Santa was on his gift-giving journey.
In one conversation, Trump asked a 7-year-old named Coleman: “Are you still a believer in Santa?”
He listened for a moment before adding: “Because at 7, it’s marginal, right?”
Trump listened again and chuckled before saying: “Well, you just enjoy yourself.”
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Can an impeached president run again?
Nothing in the constitution prevents it, that I can see.
Robert Reich: Republicans Are Preparing to Join Democrats and "Pull the Trigger" on Impeachment
Reich on facebook
He says he is told by a credible Republican that after Mueller reports on Trump's crimes congressional Republicans in both houses will cross over in numbers big enough to impeach him in the house and convict him in the senate.
That same source says Pence, once president, will pardon Trump.
Doubtless because a president actually going to jail for his crimes is just too, too unthinkable to the professional politicians running both parties and the American commentariat, as well.
Anyway, thing is, Bozo might be so enraged by the process that he would run in, and win even from prison, the GOP primaries of 2020, making for chaos in the presidential race of that year.
Robert Reich: Republicans Are Preparing to Join Democrats and "Pull the Trigger" on Impeachment
Reich on facebook
He says he is told by a credible Republican that after Mueller reports on Trump's crimes congressional Republicans in both houses will cross over in numbers big enough to impeach him in the house and convict him in the senate.
That same source says Pence, once president, will pardon Trump.
Doubtless because a president actually going to jail for his crimes is just too, too unthinkable to the professional politicians running both parties and the American commentariat, as well.
Anyway, thing is, Bozo might be so enraged by the process that he would run in, and win even from prison, the GOP primaries of 2020, making for chaos in the presidential race of that year.
Another crash ahead?
The US is on the edge of the economic precipice
Trump’s shutdown also adds to growing worries about the economy.
The stock market is on track for the worst December since the Great Depression.
World markets have lost nearly $7tn in 2018, making it the worst year since the 2008 financial crisis.
The shutdown is stoking fears that Trump could do something even more alarming.
He might fail to authorize an increase in government borrowing before the federal debt reaches the current limit, which Congress extended to 2 March.
A default by the US on its obligations would be more calamitous than a government shutdown.
. . . .
Most Americans are still living in the shadow of the Great Recession that started in December 2007 and officially ended in June 2009.
More Americans have jobs, to be sure, but their pay has barely risen when adjusted for inflation.
Many are worse off due to the escalating costs of housing, healthcare and education.
Trump has added to their financial burdens by undermining the Affordable Care Act, rolling back overtime pay, hobbling their ability to join together in unions, allowing states to cut Medicaid, and imposing tariffs that increase the prices of many goods.
America’s wealthy, meanwhile, have been taking home a growing portion of the nation’s total income.
But the rich spend a small fraction of what they earn.
The economy depends on the spending of middle-, working-class and poor families.
. . . .
The problem isn’t that Americans are living beyond their means.
It’s that their means haven’t been keeping up with the growing economy.
Most gains have gone to the top.
If the majority of households had taken home a larger share of national income, they wouldn’t have needed to go so deeply into debt.
Without wage growth, American workers can’t continue to buy without going into deeper debt.
Unless they continue to buy, the economy can’t continue to move forward.
It’s the same sort of trap that preceded the 2008 and 1929 crashes.
After the 1929 crash, the government invented new ways to boost the wages of most Americans – social security, unemployment insurance, overtime pay, a minimum wage, the requirement that employers bargain with labor unions, and, finally, a full-employment program called the second world war.
By contrast, after the 2007 crash the government bailed out the banks and pumped enough money into the economy to stop the slide.
But apart from the Affordable Care Act, nothing was done to address the underlying problem of stagnant wages.
Ten years after the start of the Great Recession, we face another economic precipice.
Trump’s shutdown also adds to growing worries about the economy.
The stock market is on track for the worst December since the Great Depression.
World markets have lost nearly $7tn in 2018, making it the worst year since the 2008 financial crisis.
The shutdown is stoking fears that Trump could do something even more alarming.
He might fail to authorize an increase in government borrowing before the federal debt reaches the current limit, which Congress extended to 2 March.
A default by the US on its obligations would be more calamitous than a government shutdown.
. . . .
Most Americans are still living in the shadow of the Great Recession that started in December 2007 and officially ended in June 2009.
More Americans have jobs, to be sure, but their pay has barely risen when adjusted for inflation.
Many are worse off due to the escalating costs of housing, healthcare and education.
Trump has added to their financial burdens by undermining the Affordable Care Act, rolling back overtime pay, hobbling their ability to join together in unions, allowing states to cut Medicaid, and imposing tariffs that increase the prices of many goods.
America’s wealthy, meanwhile, have been taking home a growing portion of the nation’s total income.
But the rich spend a small fraction of what they earn.
The economy depends on the spending of middle-, working-class and poor families.
. . . .
The problem isn’t that Americans are living beyond their means.
It’s that their means haven’t been keeping up with the growing economy.
Most gains have gone to the top.
If the majority of households had taken home a larger share of national income, they wouldn’t have needed to go so deeply into debt.
Without wage growth, American workers can’t continue to buy without going into deeper debt.
Unless they continue to buy, the economy can’t continue to move forward.
It’s the same sort of trap that preceded the 2008 and 1929 crashes.
After the 1929 crash, the government invented new ways to boost the wages of most Americans – social security, unemployment insurance, overtime pay, a minimum wage, the requirement that employers bargain with labor unions, and, finally, a full-employment program called the second world war.
By contrast, after the 2007 crash the government bailed out the banks and pumped enough money into the economy to stop the slide.
But apart from the Affordable Care Act, nothing was done to address the underlying problem of stagnant wages.
Ten years after the start of the Great Recession, we face another economic precipice.
Trump to the government and those who rely on it: Fuck you. I want my way.
Mulvaney: standoff ‘very likely’ to extend into 2019
The longer he keeps it up the longer Trump has to keep it up, to please the 30 odd percent of voters who support him even at his wackiest.
Backing down will be harder, the longer it goes on.
America woke to day two of its third government shutdown in a year with hundreds of thousands of federal employees no closer to being paid over Christmas, national parks closed and Donald Trump stubbornly refusing to accept the blame for an event he previously declared he would be “proud” to cause.
Incoming White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration was waiting to hear from congressional leaders on an offer of a deal.
But he also said the shutdown could “very likely” extend into 2019.
A senior Republican senator, meanwhile, said the president’s behaviour in provoking and prolonging the shutdown was “useless” and “puerile”.
The Senate adjourned on Saturday, majority leader Mitch McConnell citing a Republican House bill that included $5bn for Trump’s border wall as he passed the ball to Democrats and the president.
That meant the shutdown will continue until at least Thursday, after the Christmas holiday.
Congress gathers again on 3 January.
Mulvaney told Fox News Sunday it was “very possible” the shutdown could stretch into the New Year.
. . . .
Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee and will retire at the end of the year, did not express such optimism.
He said Trump had contrived the shutdown as a campaign issue.
“This is a made-up fight so the president can look like he’s fighting,” Corker told CNN’s State of the Union, adding that precedent showed Democrats would back much larger spending for border security in return for reform, such as to the status of Dreamers, young undocumented migrants brought to the US as children – just not a wall.
“This is something that is useless, it’s spectacle, it’s puerile,” Corker said.
At the White House on Saturday, Trump ate lunch with rightwingers [sic] including House Freedom Caucus chiefs Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio.
No Republican leaders or Democrats, needed for any deal, attended the meal.
Hell, this could go to March, and be resolved only when enough Republicans get sick of the madness to join Democrats in passing a budget over the president's veto.
The longer he keeps it up the longer Trump has to keep it up, to please the 30 odd percent of voters who support him even at his wackiest.
Backing down will be harder, the longer it goes on.
America woke to day two of its third government shutdown in a year with hundreds of thousands of federal employees no closer to being paid over Christmas, national parks closed and Donald Trump stubbornly refusing to accept the blame for an event he previously declared he would be “proud” to cause.
Incoming White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration was waiting to hear from congressional leaders on an offer of a deal.
But he also said the shutdown could “very likely” extend into 2019.
A senior Republican senator, meanwhile, said the president’s behaviour in provoking and prolonging the shutdown was “useless” and “puerile”.
The Senate adjourned on Saturday, majority leader Mitch McConnell citing a Republican House bill that included $5bn for Trump’s border wall as he passed the ball to Democrats and the president.
That meant the shutdown will continue until at least Thursday, after the Christmas holiday.
Congress gathers again on 3 January.
Mulvaney told Fox News Sunday it was “very possible” the shutdown could stretch into the New Year.
. . . .
Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee and will retire at the end of the year, did not express such optimism.
He said Trump had contrived the shutdown as a campaign issue.
“This is a made-up fight so the president can look like he’s fighting,” Corker told CNN’s State of the Union, adding that precedent showed Democrats would back much larger spending for border security in return for reform, such as to the status of Dreamers, young undocumented migrants brought to the US as children – just not a wall.
“This is something that is useless, it’s spectacle, it’s puerile,” Corker said.
At the White House on Saturday, Trump ate lunch with rightwingers [sic] including House Freedom Caucus chiefs Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio.
No Republican leaders or Democrats, needed for any deal, attended the meal.
Hell, this could go to March, and be resolved only when enough Republicans get sick of the madness to join Democrats in passing a budget over the president's veto.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized
Surgery for removal of malignant nodules in her lungs, discovered during examination of her rib cage after a fall.
In her mid-eighties and in very poor health.
Trump may well get to appoint a third justice to the Supreme Court.
The next Democratic president will have to pack the court or watch the radical right loonies among the Supremes take every liberal achievement apart, all the way back to the end of the 19th Century.
In her mid-eighties and in very poor health.
Trump may well get to appoint a third justice to the Supreme Court.
The next Democratic president will have to pack the court or watch the radical right loonies among the Supremes take every liberal achievement apart, all the way back to the end of the 19th Century.
Mitch McConnell supports the wall in the senate, attacks Democrats
Right now on the TV he's echoing the Trump propaganda of panic about gangsters, drugs, and terrorists for the wall.
He's blaming the Democrats for not supporting "common-sense" legislation.
A roll call vote is underway for something.
Will the Democrats cave?
Maybe.
All the newsies on MSNBC say no way, but they also said the wall money wouldn't even clear the house.
And it did.
They are also saying McConnell won't change the rules and abolish the filibuster altogether, as the Duce has urged at least since he became president and perhaps earlier.
I don't recall.
He's blaming the Democrats for not supporting "common-sense" legislation.
A roll call vote is underway for something.
Will the Democrats cave?
Maybe.
All the newsies on MSNBC say no way, but they also said the wall money wouldn't even clear the house.
And it did.
They are also saying McConnell won't change the rules and abolish the filibuster altogether, as the Duce has urged at least since he became president and perhaps earlier.
I don't recall.
Reversal coming up?
Alabama asks conservative SCOTUS to take up anti-abortion case, eyeing Roe v. Wade
The Alabama attorney general officially asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to review a lower court’s decision that a state law prohibiting a common method used for second-trimester abortions is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit against Alabama’s dilation and evacuation (D&E) ban is the second anti-abortion case before the Supreme Court.
There are at least 11 other cases at the appeals level, meaning more anti-abortion cases can land on the Supreme Court’s 2019 docket.
This spells bad news for the future of Roe v. Wade.
Given that the Supreme Court moved further right this year, the constitutional right to abortion before viability, scientifically determined to be at 24 to 28 weeks, afforded by Roe and reaffirmed by past decisions is at risk.
The Alabama attorney general officially asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to review a lower court’s decision that a state law prohibiting a common method used for second-trimester abortions is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit against Alabama’s dilation and evacuation (D&E) ban is the second anti-abortion case before the Supreme Court.
There are at least 11 other cases at the appeals level, meaning more anti-abortion cases can land on the Supreme Court’s 2019 docket.
This spells bad news for the future of Roe v. Wade.
Given that the Supreme Court moved further right this year, the constitutional right to abortion before viability, scientifically determined to be at 24 to 28 weeks, afforded by Roe and reaffirmed by past decisions is at risk.
General Wesley Clark on MSNBC just said the American people elected Trump, the isolationist
They did not.
By several millions, a majority of those who voted at all voted for Hillary, the globalist.
The Electoral College, that the Founders thought would keep demagogues chosen by the people out of the presidency, voted for Trump, an isolationist demagogue not chosen by the people.
By several millions, a majority of those who voted at all voted for Hillary, the globalist.
The Electoral College, that the Founders thought would keep demagogues chosen by the people out of the presidency, voted for Trump, an isolationist demagogue not chosen by the people.
The house gave Trump his wall money
Nancy Pelosi said it wouldn't happen and she has been proved wrong.
House approves spending bill with $5.7B for border wall
The House of Representatives Thursday approved a bill that would fund most of the federal government through early February -- and provides $5.7 billion for President Trump's long-promised border wall, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown later this week.
Eight Republicans joined all 177 voting Democrats to oppose the measure, which passed 217-185.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the 60 votes needed for passage since the chamber's 49 Democrats are against funding the wall.
That, in turn, makes it more likely that parts of the federal government, including nine of 15 Cabinet-level departments and dozens of agencies, will cease operations at midnight Friday.
The vote came hours after Trump told House GOP leaders that he would not enact a Senate-passed package that does not provide money for the barrier.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders had pushed the hardest for Trump to stand his ground on the wall issue, said in a statement:
"Republicans in Congress have continually told the American people that we would fight for wall funding, and today the House of Representatives took its first step toward fulfilling that promise.
"The Senate must follow our lead. It’s time we do what we said and work with President Trump and the American people to secure our borders."
Trump congratulated Republican House members in a tweet late Thursday, saying he was "so proud of you all."
We are the hostages of a fuckhead leader and his fuckhead party, since a government shutdown hurts us, the people the government serves and protects.
The right-wing loonies who support this see government as mostly the enemy and see a shutdown as hurting it, the enemy.
Fortunately, that is still not the view of a majority of our nitwit fellow countrymen.
I think.
House Republicans last night did as expected by me and by Trump, if not by Nancy Pelosi, and passed the hot potato - money for the wall - to the Democrats in the senate.
Trump's joyful shutdown looms.
Trump Warns of ‘Very Long Shutdown’ Over Wall Funding Dispute
House approves spending bill with $5.7B for border wall
The House of Representatives Thursday approved a bill that would fund most of the federal government through early February -- and provides $5.7 billion for President Trump's long-promised border wall, increasing the chances of a partial government shutdown later this week.
Eight Republicans joined all 177 voting Democrats to oppose the measure, which passed 217-185.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the 60 votes needed for passage since the chamber's 49 Democrats are against funding the wall.
That, in turn, makes it more likely that parts of the federal government, including nine of 15 Cabinet-level departments and dozens of agencies, will cease operations at midnight Friday.
The vote came hours after Trump told House GOP leaders that he would not enact a Senate-passed package that does not provide money for the barrier.
Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders had pushed the hardest for Trump to stand his ground on the wall issue, said in a statement:
"Republicans in Congress have continually told the American people that we would fight for wall funding, and today the House of Representatives took its first step toward fulfilling that promise.
"The Senate must follow our lead. It’s time we do what we said and work with President Trump and the American people to secure our borders."
Trump congratulated Republican House members in a tweet late Thursday, saying he was "so proud of you all."
We are the hostages of a fuckhead leader and his fuckhead party, since a government shutdown hurts us, the people the government serves and protects.
The right-wing loonies who support this see government as mostly the enemy and see a shutdown as hurting it, the enemy.
Fortunately, that is still not the view of a majority of our nitwit fellow countrymen.
I think.
House Republicans last night did as expected by me and by Trump, if not by Nancy Pelosi, and passed the hot potato - money for the wall - to the Democrats in the senate.
Trump's joyful shutdown looms.
Trump Warns of ‘Very Long Shutdown’ Over Wall Funding Dispute
Liar Trump is already throwing the blame for what will be all his own doing on the Democrats.
“The Democrats, whose votes we need in the Senate, will probably vote against Border Security and the Wall even though they know it is DESPERATELY NEEDED,” Trump said in a Friday morning Twitter post.
“If the Dems vote no, there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time. People don’t want Open Borders and Crime!”
Notice he did not write "If the Dems vote no I will joyfully shut down the government for months in a positively historic tantrum. Yay!"
He wrote "there will be a shutdown," as if it somehow flowed as a consequence of their refusal to give him his way rather than his own choice to punish the nation and smash things in a stupid, childish rage.
The president’s comments sought to preemptively shift blame to the minority party if a funding lapse occurs at midnight, even though Trump has said he’d be proud to shut down the government.
The president on Thursday scuttled an apparent deal to fund the government through Feb. 8 when he suddenly said he’d reject it.
. . . .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday his party won’t fund the wall, which Trump pledged Mexico would pay for, and said the new Democratic House would pass a bill reopening the government without wall funds on Jan. 3 if need be.
And will Trump refuse to sign that?
Republicans control 51 seats in the chamber.
And will Trump refuse to sign that?
Trump also urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to permanently change the Senate’s rules to allow spending bills to pass with 51 votes rather than the current 60 votes, in order to make Democratic support unnecessary.
Republicans control 51 seats in the chamber.
Mattis quits
His domestic agenda will be dead in 2020.
It will be the year of Trump's isolationism.
And he's starting early with his withdrawal from Syria and an impending withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Too much for the last globalist general working for the Duce.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigns, scolding Trump over his military judgment
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced his resignation Thursday afternoon, sending President Donald Trump a letter that implicitly criticized the president's military judgment.
In the letter, Mattis suggested Trump was not treating allies with respect and had not been "clear-eyed" about U.S. enemies and competitors.
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” he wrote.
Mattis told the president in the letter that he should have a defense chief who shares his views.
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” he wrote.
It will be the year of Trump's isolationism.
And he's starting early with his withdrawal from Syria and an impending withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Too much for the last globalist general working for the Duce.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigns, scolding Trump over his military judgment
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced his resignation Thursday afternoon, sending President Donald Trump a letter that implicitly criticized the president's military judgment.
In the letter, Mattis suggested Trump was not treating allies with respect and had not been "clear-eyed" about U.S. enemies and competitors.
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” he wrote.
Mattis told the president in the letter that he should have a defense chief who shares his views.
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” he wrote.
. . . .
"One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships," the general wrote.
"While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies," the letter said.
. . . .
Previously, Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal without consulting Mattis, who had to scramble to get the president on the phone before that formal announcement was made.
This past summer, Trump surprised Mattis again by pausing U.S. military exercises with South Korean in a concession to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
A short time later, Mattis was blindsided by Trump again when the president directed the Pentagon to develop a sixth branch of the military to oversee space.
Globalists in his own party are as dismayed as those among the Democrats.
In the media some are reminding us how freaked Mattis was at Trump's proposal to withdraw from South Korea and his suggestions of withdrawal from NATO.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a statement seemed to echo some of Mattis' comments about alliances in the letter.
"I believe it’s essential that the United States maintain and strengthen the post-World War II alliances that have been carefully built by leaders in both parties," McConnell said.
"We must also maintain a clear-eyed understanding of our friends and foes, and recognize that nations like Russia are among the latter.
"I am particularly distressed that he is resigning due to sharp differences with the president on these and other key aspects of America’s global leadership," he continued, urging Trump "to select a leader who shares Secretary Mattis's understanding of these vital principles and his total commitment to America’s servicemembers."
Thursday, December 20, 2018
An epidemic of fat
Hokey smokes.
And crikey.
U.S. adults aren't getting taller, but they're still putting on pounds
The average U.S. adult is overweight and just a few pounds from obese, thanks to average weight increases in all groups — but particularly whites and Hispanics.
Overall, the average height for men actually fell very slightly over the past decade. There was no change for women.
Average weight, waist size, and BMI (a measure of obesity) has increased over the past 18 years, a new report says, further supporting the notion that the U.S. has an obesity crisis.
One factor may be the shift in the country's population.
There's a growing number of Mexican-Americans, and that group tends to be a little shorter, said one of the report's authors, Cynthia Ogden of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
. . . .
CDC records date back to the early 1960s, when the average man was a little over 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighed 166 pounds.
Now, men are almost 1 inch taller and more than 30 pounds heavier.
But today's average height of 5 feet, 9 inches is about a tenth of an inch shorter than about a decade ago.
The average woman in the early 1960s was 5 feet, 3 inches and 140 pounds.
Now, women are a half-inch taller and about 30 pounds heavier, on average.
The average height is about the same as it was a decade earlier: 5 feet, 4 inches.
I'm a 6 foot tall white guy and I weigh 195, making me a tad overweight per the CDC.
The average American male is three inches shorter than I and weighs 198.
My wife is five feet tall and weighs 128.
Jeez.
. . . .
The average height of black men and white men has been holding about steady, at a little under 5 feet 10.
Mexican-American and Asian-American men are roughly 3 inches shorter than whites and blacks, on average.
There was a similar height gap in women.
In 2016, about 18 percent of the nation's population was Hispanic, up from about 13 percent in 2000, according to U.S. Census figures.
Mexican-Americans account for nearly two-thirds of the Hispanic population.
And crikey.
U.S. adults aren't getting taller, but they're still putting on pounds
The average U.S. adult is overweight and just a few pounds from obese, thanks to average weight increases in all groups — but particularly whites and Hispanics.
Overall, the average height for men actually fell very slightly over the past decade. There was no change for women.
Average weight, waist size, and BMI (a measure of obesity) has increased over the past 18 years, a new report says, further supporting the notion that the U.S. has an obesity crisis.
One factor may be the shift in the country's population.
There's a growing number of Mexican-Americans, and that group tends to be a little shorter, said one of the report's authors, Cynthia Ogden of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
. . . .
CDC records date back to the early 1960s, when the average man was a little over 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighed 166 pounds.
Now, men are almost 1 inch taller and more than 30 pounds heavier.
But today's average height of 5 feet, 9 inches is about a tenth of an inch shorter than about a decade ago.
The average woman in the early 1960s was 5 feet, 3 inches and 140 pounds.
Now, women are a half-inch taller and about 30 pounds heavier, on average.
The average height is about the same as it was a decade earlier: 5 feet, 4 inches.
I'm a 6 foot tall white guy and I weigh 195, making me a tad overweight per the CDC.
The average American male is three inches shorter than I and weighs 198.
My wife is five feet tall and weighs 128.
Jeez.
. . . .
The average height of black men and white men has been holding about steady, at a little under 5 feet 10.
Mexican-American and Asian-American men are roughly 3 inches shorter than whites and blacks, on average.
There was a similar height gap in women.
In 2016, about 18 percent of the nation's population was Hispanic, up from about 13 percent in 2000, according to U.S. Census figures.
Mexican-Americans account for nearly two-thirds of the Hispanic population.
But is it Kosher?
I have no idea.
But does this German bigot think that, if it is, that just proves the Jews are driving pure German Christian civilization into horrific and way too scary Jewishness?
Toblerone's halal certification outrages the far right
Members of Europe's far right have called for a mass boycott of Toblerone, after discovering that the popular triangular chocolate bar is halal-certified.
. . . .
Toblerone has not changed its recipe, but some online commentators have taken badly the news that its factory in Bern, Switzerland, achieved a halal certification in April -- with the federal spokesman of Germany's nationalist AfD party claiming it showed the "Islamization" of Europe.
"Islamization does not take place -- neither in Germany nor in Europe," the AfD's Jörg Meuthen wrote sarcastically on social media.
"It is therefore certainly pure coincidence that the depicted, known chocolate variety is now certified as 'HALAL.'"
But does this German bigot think that, if it is, that just proves the Jews are driving pure German Christian civilization into horrific and way too scary Jewishness?
Toblerone's halal certification outrages the far right
Members of Europe's far right have called for a mass boycott of Toblerone, after discovering that the popular triangular chocolate bar is halal-certified.
. . . .
Toblerone has not changed its recipe, but some online commentators have taken badly the news that its factory in Bern, Switzerland, achieved a halal certification in April -- with the federal spokesman of Germany's nationalist AfD party claiming it showed the "Islamization" of Europe.
"Islamization does not take place -- neither in Germany nor in Europe," the AfD's Jörg Meuthen wrote sarcastically on social media.
"It is therefore certainly pure coincidence that the depicted, known chocolate variety is now certified as 'HALAL.'"
Lying Trump wants to blame somebody else, after all.
And it's the Democrats, by preference, of course.
He welched on his agreement of two or three days ago to sign a bipartisan deal to extend funding into February without money for his wall.
Now he insists on five billion for the wall.
If the Republicans in the house who oppose the wall vote their consciences the wall money will not even pass the house and Trump will shut down the government and likely blame house Republicans as well as the Democrats.
And that's the incentive for the house Republicans who loathe the wall to vote for it, anyway.
They have nothing to lose voting for it, and something to gain.
If they vote to give the president his wall money he still won't get it because the senate Democrats will block it, and when he shuts down the government in a tantrum he will blame not the house Republicans but the senate Democrats.
What's not to like?
Shutdown aside, of course.
Trump torpedoes funding bill over border wall
Why Donald Trump changed his mind on the border wall (HINT: It has to do with Fox News)
Basically, they and Breitbart called him a pussy.
He can't have that.
On Wednesday morning, the hosts of "Fox and Friends" blasted Trump's seeming capitulation on the border wall.
"What a stunning turn of events," said Steve Doocy.
"If [Trump] agrees to the [short-term funding resolution] which would continue funding the government at the current levels ... he loses and the Democrats will win everything they want."
Added Ainsley Earhardt: "People who voted for him and want the wall and went to the polls to vote for that wall, they want to know how he's going to do this and they want to know why he seems to be softening his stance this morning."
If you think that criticism didn't impact Trump's thinking on the wall, you don't know Trump.
He prizes his political base over all else.
And he views "Fox and Friends" as the in-house programming for the base.
He welched on his agreement of two or three days ago to sign a bipartisan deal to extend funding into February without money for his wall.
Now he insists on five billion for the wall.
If the Republicans in the house who oppose the wall vote their consciences the wall money will not even pass the house and Trump will shut down the government and likely blame house Republicans as well as the Democrats.
And that's the incentive for the house Republicans who loathe the wall to vote for it, anyway.
They have nothing to lose voting for it, and something to gain.
If they vote to give the president his wall money he still won't get it because the senate Democrats will block it, and when he shuts down the government in a tantrum he will blame not the house Republicans but the senate Democrats.
What's not to like?
Shutdown aside, of course.
Trump torpedoes funding bill over border wall
Why Donald Trump changed his mind on the border wall (HINT: It has to do with Fox News)
Basically, they and Breitbart called him a pussy.
He can't have that.
On Wednesday morning, the hosts of "Fox and Friends" blasted Trump's seeming capitulation on the border wall.
"What a stunning turn of events," said Steve Doocy.
"If [Trump] agrees to the [short-term funding resolution] which would continue funding the government at the current levels ... he loses and the Democrats will win everything they want."
Added Ainsley Earhardt: "People who voted for him and want the wall and went to the polls to vote for that wall, they want to know how he's going to do this and they want to know why he seems to be softening his stance this morning."
If you think that criticism didn't impact Trump's thinking on the wall, you don't know Trump.
He prizes his political base over all else.
And he views "Fox and Friends" as the in-house programming for the base.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
This asshole does love to piss in Democrats' faces
even when the occasion does not actually call for so much as mention of any Democrat, for any reason.
Graham: 'Obama-like mistake' for Trump to withdraw troops from Syria
Oh, and you certainly wouldn't want to be Obama-like at all, would you, little Donnie?
Noooo, you wouldn't want that.
Graham: 'Obama-like mistake' for Trump to withdraw troops from Syria
Oh, and you certainly wouldn't want to be Obama-like at all, would you, little Donnie?
Noooo, you wouldn't want that.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Is O'Rourke ready?
Well, after three terms as a congressman from Texas, he's readier than Trump ever was or ever will be.
OK, he's a white guy, but he's not an old white guy.
And I'll bet he can draw a bigger slice of the white electorate, and the white male electorate, than Hillary or Barack did.
Beto O'Rourke poses growing threat to fellow Democrats with 2020 hopes
A helpful summary of his politics is at Wikipedia.
OK, he's a white guy, but he's not an old white guy.
And I'll bet he can draw a bigger slice of the white electorate, and the white male electorate, than Hillary or Barack did.
Beto O'Rourke poses growing threat to fellow Democrats with 2020 hopes
A helpful summary of his politics is at Wikipedia.
Trump flinched?
Because the Democrats didn't?
Trump backs off demand for $5 billion for border wall, but shutdown still possible after Democrats reject new GOP offer
President Trump on Tuesday retreated from his demand for $5 billion to build a border wall, as congressional Republicans maneuvered to avoid a partial government shutdown before funding expires at the end of Friday.
But Democrats immediately rejected Republicans’ follow-up offer, leaving the two sides still at impasse as hundreds of thousands of federal workers await word on whether they will be sent home without pay just before Christmas.
The new border funding offer from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) calls on Congress to pass a $1.6 billion homeland security spending bill that was crafted earlier this year in a bipartisan Senate compromise.
Under the offer, Congress would also reprogram $1 billion in unspent funds that Trump could use on his immigration policies.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who oversees the panel in charge of homeland security funding, said the reprogrammed money would not be able to be used for a physical wall but could be spent on other border security measures.
Sen. Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told McConnell Tuesday that Democrats would not accept the deal, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the plan to reprogram the funds.
“Leader Schumer and I have said that we cannot support the offer they made of a billion-dollar slush fund for the president to implement his very wrong immigration policies,” Pelosi said.
“So that won’t happen.”
With the two sides again deadlocked, several Republican lawmakers predicted the most likely outcome would be a short-term budget extension to push back the deadline for a partial shutdown.
Such a “continuing resolution” would keep spending at existing spending levels but leave the larger questions of wall funding unresolved.
It would also mean the next round of negotiations would probably happen with the House under Democratic control.
Funding for the Homeland Security Department, Justice, Interior, Agriculture and other agencies — comprising a quarter of the federal government — runs out Friday at midnight absent action by Congress and Trump.
The funding is all hung up over Trump’s demands for $5 billion for the wall, which Democrats have rejected.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday said Trump did not want a government shutdown and that the administration had identified “other ways” to fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Really? Will Mexico pay? Because America isn't going to.
Sanders’ comments Tuesday reflect a significant shift from when Trump last week told Democratic leaders he would be “proud” to shut down the government to get border wall funding.
Trump backs off demand for $5 billion for border wall, but shutdown still possible after Democrats reject new GOP offer
President Trump on Tuesday retreated from his demand for $5 billion to build a border wall, as congressional Republicans maneuvered to avoid a partial government shutdown before funding expires at the end of Friday.
But Democrats immediately rejected Republicans’ follow-up offer, leaving the two sides still at impasse as hundreds of thousands of federal workers await word on whether they will be sent home without pay just before Christmas.
The new border funding offer from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) calls on Congress to pass a $1.6 billion homeland security spending bill that was crafted earlier this year in a bipartisan Senate compromise.
Under the offer, Congress would also reprogram $1 billion in unspent funds that Trump could use on his immigration policies.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who oversees the panel in charge of homeland security funding, said the reprogrammed money would not be able to be used for a physical wall but could be spent on other border security measures.
Sen. Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told McConnell Tuesday that Democrats would not accept the deal, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the plan to reprogram the funds.
“Leader Schumer and I have said that we cannot support the offer they made of a billion-dollar slush fund for the president to implement his very wrong immigration policies,” Pelosi said.
“So that won’t happen.”
With the two sides again deadlocked, several Republican lawmakers predicted the most likely outcome would be a short-term budget extension to push back the deadline for a partial shutdown.
Such a “continuing resolution” would keep spending at existing spending levels but leave the larger questions of wall funding unresolved.
It would also mean the next round of negotiations would probably happen with the House under Democratic control.
Funding for the Homeland Security Department, Justice, Interior, Agriculture and other agencies — comprising a quarter of the federal government — runs out Friday at midnight absent action by Congress and Trump.
The funding is all hung up over Trump’s demands for $5 billion for the wall, which Democrats have rejected.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday said Trump did not want a government shutdown and that the administration had identified “other ways” to fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Really? Will Mexico pay? Because America isn't going to.
Sanders’ comments Tuesday reflect a significant shift from when Trump last week told Democratic leaders he would be “proud” to shut down the government to get border wall funding.
The most vicious asshole in the White House
second only to the Duce, himself.
Stephen Miller on "Face the Nation," December 16, 2018
MILLER: Well obviously there's no change immediately in Obamacare.
There hasn't been a nationwide injunction.
Obamacare was ruled to be unconstitutional.
We've always known that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
The more important question is whether Democrats are going to work with Republicans once Obamacare is ultimately struck down, which we believe it will be, to come up with a replacement plan that protects preexisting conditions.
Helps the 28 million Americans who because of Obamacare still don't have access to health insurance and keeps prices low through robust competition.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So to be clear there, you're predicting that this goes to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down?
MILLER: I believe that's the likeliest outcome . . .
. . . .
MARGARET BRENNAN: --you're a key voice on, and that is immigration and also want to talk about the possible shutdown here.
One very particular case here, this seven year old migrant girl who passed away.
She was a migrant from Guatemala named Jakelin Caal.
She died some hours after passing into U.S. territory while she was under the protection of Customs and Border Patrol.
Who bears responsibility for her death?
MILLER: Our hearts break for the tragic death of the 7 year old girl.
The loss of that precious life is. Horrifying.
It is a painful reminder of the ongoing humanitarian tragedy that is illegal immigration and the misery that it spreads.
A coyote dropped off one hundred sixty three migrants in an extremely remote section of New Mexico.
Those individuals were found by border patrol who, many cases act as first responders.
In fact Border Patrol saves about 4,000 lives every single year.
Unfortunately hundreds die on the dangerous trek up.
Smuggling organizations profit off death and misery.
They are vicious, vile organizations.
And it's time that both parties had the appropriate level of outrage over the fact that these organizations--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Border patrol though says--
MILLER: --continue to take advantage
MARGARET BRENNAN: it wasn't adequately equipped to deal with the record number of families coming across. Why aren't they?
MILLER: One of the great tragedies that is going on in our country today is the loopholes in our immigration laws and the deficiencies in our immigration laws.
And left wing, activist judicial rulings that incentivize the most vulnerable populations to come to our country. Last year--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And the administration--
MILLER: --a hundred thousand--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --hasn't been able to deter them from making that trip.
MILLER: --last year- last year- a hundred thousand unaccompanied alien children or children traveling with adults showed up at our southern border.
MILLER: President Trump took dramatic action, issued an executive order directing illegal traffic to the ports of entry, but a left wing, activist judge issued a reckless nationwide injunction on the president's order putting thousands of lives at risk and further enriching these grotesque--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And a- a record number--
MILLER: --heinous, smuggle organizations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: --continue to cross. I want to quickly get to--
MILLER: The only way to-
MARGARET BRENNAN: --because we're going to run out of time--
MILLER: The only way--
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get to this question the border wall which I know you're a huge advocate for.
We are about five days from a potential government shutdown and Republican leadership says there's no plan.
What is the president's plan and will he shut it down to get this 5 billion in border wall funding?
MILLER: We're going to do whatever is necessary to build the border wall to stop this ongoing crisis of illegal immigration--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that means a shutdown?
MILLER: This is a- this is a very- if it comes to it, absolutely.
This is a very fundamental issue.
At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country.
Whether or not we can establish and enforce rules for entrance into our country.
The Democrat Party has a simple choice, they can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration.
You can't do both.
Stephen Miller on "Face the Nation," December 16, 2018
MILLER: Well obviously there's no change immediately in Obamacare.
There hasn't been a nationwide injunction.
Obamacare was ruled to be unconstitutional.
We've always known that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
The more important question is whether Democrats are going to work with Republicans once Obamacare is ultimately struck down, which we believe it will be, to come up with a replacement plan that protects preexisting conditions.
Helps the 28 million Americans who because of Obamacare still don't have access to health insurance and keeps prices low through robust competition.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So to be clear there, you're predicting that this goes to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court ultimately strikes down?
MILLER: I believe that's the likeliest outcome . . .
. . . .
MARGARET BRENNAN: --you're a key voice on, and that is immigration and also want to talk about the possible shutdown here.
One very particular case here, this seven year old migrant girl who passed away.
She was a migrant from Guatemala named Jakelin Caal.
She died some hours after passing into U.S. territory while she was under the protection of Customs and Border Patrol.
Who bears responsibility for her death?
MILLER: Our hearts break for the tragic death of the 7 year old girl.
The loss of that precious life is. Horrifying.
It is a painful reminder of the ongoing humanitarian tragedy that is illegal immigration and the misery that it spreads.
A coyote dropped off one hundred sixty three migrants in an extremely remote section of New Mexico.
Those individuals were found by border patrol who, many cases act as first responders.
In fact Border Patrol saves about 4,000 lives every single year.
Unfortunately hundreds die on the dangerous trek up.
Smuggling organizations profit off death and misery.
They are vicious, vile organizations.
And it's time that both parties had the appropriate level of outrage over the fact that these organizations--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Border patrol though says--
MILLER: --continue to take advantage
MARGARET BRENNAN: it wasn't adequately equipped to deal with the record number of families coming across. Why aren't they?
MILLER: One of the great tragedies that is going on in our country today is the loopholes in our immigration laws and the deficiencies in our immigration laws.
And left wing, activist judicial rulings that incentivize the most vulnerable populations to come to our country. Last year--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And the administration--
MILLER: --a hundred thousand--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --hasn't been able to deter them from making that trip.
MILLER: --last year- last year- a hundred thousand unaccompanied alien children or children traveling with adults showed up at our southern border.
MILLER: President Trump took dramatic action, issued an executive order directing illegal traffic to the ports of entry, but a left wing, activist judge issued a reckless nationwide injunction on the president's order putting thousands of lives at risk and further enriching these grotesque--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And a- a record number--
MILLER: --heinous, smuggle organizations.
MARGARET BRENNAN: --continue to cross. I want to quickly get to--
MILLER: The only way to-
MARGARET BRENNAN: --because we're going to run out of time--
MILLER: The only way--
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get to this question the border wall which I know you're a huge advocate for.
We are about five days from a potential government shutdown and Republican leadership says there's no plan.
What is the president's plan and will he shut it down to get this 5 billion in border wall funding?
MILLER: We're going to do whatever is necessary to build the border wall to stop this ongoing crisis of illegal immigration--
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that means a shutdown?
MILLER: This is a- this is a very- if it comes to it, absolutely.
This is a very fundamental issue.
At stake is the question of whether or not the United States remains a sovereign country.
Whether or not we can establish and enforce rules for entrance into our country.
The Democrat Party has a simple choice, they can either choose to fight for America's working class or to promote illegal immigration.
You can't do both.
The GOP replacement for Obamacare
After Obamacare is gone
‘If there’s one thing that is absolutely clear after the past 2 years on health care, it is that Rs have no alternative to the ACA, and never will. Their plan is for people to get sick, go bankrupt, and die,” he wrote.
Paul Krugman, that is.
Flynn mans up after Sanders echos Rudi's bullshit about a "perjury trap"
Judge delays sentencing for Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, for lying to FBI about Russia
The sentencing was postponed after Flynn's defense lawyers filed a memo that agreed with prosecutors that deserved no prison time, but offered a new account of the Jan. 24, 2017, interview with FBI agents.
Flynn gave the interview without a lawyer present and lied about his contacts with Russia ambassador Sergey Kisylak.
Before the interview, his attorneys said, FBI officials had decided that they would not warn Flynn about the criminal consequences for lying to federal agents.
"One of the agents reported that General Flynn was 'unguarded' during the interview and 'clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,' " the Flynn document stated.
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, suggested Tuesday on Fox News Channel's America's Newsroom that FBI violated protocols in interviewing Flynn.
“Look, we’re arguing that he was certainly ambushed and that the FBI, that we know, had clear political bias, we’ve seen that time and time again," Sanders said.
. . . .
Prosecutors and Flynn's defense team told the judge they weren't challenging the interview or withdrawing his guilty plea.
Flynn told the judge that he had no intention of challenging the interview; he knew it was a crime to lie to the FBI and did not wish to withdraw his plea.
“General Flynn fully accepts responsibility,” attorney Robert Kelner told the judge, adding that his client was not suggesting that he had been entrapped by the FBI during the January 2017 interview.
The sentencing was postponed after Flynn's defense lawyers filed a memo that agreed with prosecutors that deserved no prison time, but offered a new account of the Jan. 24, 2017, interview with FBI agents.
Flynn gave the interview without a lawyer present and lied about his contacts with Russia ambassador Sergey Kisylak.
Before the interview, his attorneys said, FBI officials had decided that they would not warn Flynn about the criminal consequences for lying to federal agents.
"One of the agents reported that General Flynn was 'unguarded' during the interview and 'clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,' " the Flynn document stated.
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, suggested Tuesday on Fox News Channel's America's Newsroom that FBI violated protocols in interviewing Flynn.
“Look, we’re arguing that he was certainly ambushed and that the FBI, that we know, had clear political bias, we’ve seen that time and time again," Sanders said.
. . . .
Prosecutors and Flynn's defense team told the judge they weren't challenging the interview or withdrawing his guilty plea.
Flynn told the judge that he had no intention of challenging the interview; he knew it was a crime to lie to the FBI and did not wish to withdraw his plea.
“General Flynn fully accepts responsibility,” attorney Robert Kelner told the judge, adding that his client was not suggesting that he had been entrapped by the FBI during the January 2017 interview.
Has Trump already been indicted for ordering Cohen to commit a federal crime?
Napolitano to Shep Smith
The discussion began with Shepard Smith noting that Napolitano has asserted previously that, contrary to Rudy Giuliani's emphatic claims Monday, Trump will talk with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it's just a matter of when and how, whether that's one-on-one "with a lawyer whispering in the president's ear" or via grand jury subpoena.
"You think that a grand jury subpoena is a real thing that might come for President Trump?" Smith asked.
"Yes, I do," said Napolitano.
"I think that Bob Mueller knows that he needs to lock the president in to a version of events before he takes the next step[.]"
. . .
"Well, last week in federal district court here in New York City, a federal judge at the end of Michael Cohen's sentencing said the president orchestrated and paid for this crime," Napolitano replied.
"He was referring to one of the nine to which Michael Cohen had pleaded guilty," he added, referencing Cohen's campaign finance violation plea.
"You're saying the president's an unindicted co-conspirator?" asked Smith, apparently surprised.
"Yes," said Napolitano.
"I'm also saying that there’s ample evidence — this, this doesn’t require too much analysis — to indict the president. The question is do they want to do it."
. . .
"The DOJ has three opinions in this. Two say you can’t indict a sitting president, one says you can.
"But all three address the problem of what do you do when the statute of limitations is about to expire.
"All three agree in that circumstance you indict in secret, keep the indictment sealed, and release it the day he gets out of office.
"You can't let a person go scot-free because they happen to be in the White House."
"So he may be an already indicted co-conspirator," said Smith.
"That I don't know about," said Napolitano, "but it could be because we don't know what's been sealed."
The discussion began with Shepard Smith noting that Napolitano has asserted previously that, contrary to Rudy Giuliani's emphatic claims Monday, Trump will talk with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it's just a matter of when and how, whether that's one-on-one "with a lawyer whispering in the president's ear" or via grand jury subpoena.
"You think that a grand jury subpoena is a real thing that might come for President Trump?" Smith asked.
"Yes, I do," said Napolitano.
"I think that Bob Mueller knows that he needs to lock the president in to a version of events before he takes the next step[.]"
. . .
"Well, last week in federal district court here in New York City, a federal judge at the end of Michael Cohen's sentencing said the president orchestrated and paid for this crime," Napolitano replied.
"He was referring to one of the nine to which Michael Cohen had pleaded guilty," he added, referencing Cohen's campaign finance violation plea.
"You're saying the president's an unindicted co-conspirator?" asked Smith, apparently surprised.
"Yes," said Napolitano.
"I'm also saying that there’s ample evidence — this, this doesn’t require too much analysis — to indict the president. The question is do they want to do it."
. . .
"The DOJ has three opinions in this. Two say you can’t indict a sitting president, one says you can.
"But all three address the problem of what do you do when the statute of limitations is about to expire.
"All three agree in that circumstance you indict in secret, keep the indictment sealed, and release it the day he gets out of office.
"You can't let a person go scot-free because they happen to be in the White House."
"So he may be an already indicted co-conspirator," said Smith.
"That I don't know about," said Napolitano, "but it could be because we don't know what's been sealed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)