People have been saying it for years

Women playing men's sports is of interest disproportionately to lesbians, and not that much to anyone, women included.

Lesbians as players more than as fans, but really both.

Part of why women athletes are paid less than their male counterparts is that the fan base isn't anywhere near as large.

And it's a good reason.

Men mostly want to watch men.

As do women.

Androgyny Is Now Fashionable in the W.N.B.A.

They are looking like the lesbians they are and for so long pretended not to be.

PS.

Women in the police, women in the fire department, women in the military, especially women in combat arms.

We always knew it but for the longest time nobody was allowed to say so.

Well, men weren't allowed to say so.

Still aren't, really.

Maybe Trump will say it for us and get a bump up to 43% from his current ceiling of 41.

(And yet.)

Clear and distinct, obscure or confused

Crucial to the Cartesian epistemology.

So what are they?

Bluff?

Anyway.

The 3rd meditation, among other things, advances 2 proofs of the existence of God of which the first is the more novel, though both rely on the principle that the whole cause of something must contain "objectively or eminently" as much reality as its effect.

The 4th meditation echoes ancient skeptical themes about schooling oneself to withhold judgement regarding what is uncertain lest we believe what is false.

The 5th contains a defense of the ontological proof and claims knowledge of God's existence and veracity are foundational to the sciences, licensing continued confidence in things whose clear and distinct proofs are recalled but no longer before our minds.

Still a circle.

There are many nods to Plato in the Meditations, including reference to the doctrine of reminiscence which D does not literally accept and reference to the immutable and eternal essence of the triangle which he does literally espouse.

Elsewhere I have read that Schoolmen reconciled Platonic realism with Aristotelian conceptualism by locating the Ideas as concepts in God's mind.

D is absolutely drenched in scholastic learning.

Med 6. The argument that we cannot imagine a chiliagon - or its thousand sides - is bogus.

I can't perceive the difference between a chiliagon and a myriagon.

Does that mean I can't perceive either?

That we cannot perceive their sides?

No.

The famous possibility argument:

[B]ecause I know that all things which I apprehend clearly and distinctly can be created by God as I apprehend them, it suffices that I am able to apprehend one thing apart from another clearly and distinctly in order to be certain that the one is different from the other . . . .

[J]ust because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing. . . .

[B]ecause, on the one side, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other, I possess a distinct idea of body, inasmuch as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul, by which I am what I am], is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body, and can exist without it.

Trump's tariffs are aimed squarely at his own voters

China isn't going to pay for this.

The folks shopping at the Walmart are going to.

‘Catastrophic,’ ‘Cataclysmic’: Trump’s Tariff Threat Has Retailers Sounding Alarm

That includes the wife and me, by the way, though we weren't among the white geezers stupid enough or racist enough to vote for him.

We know lots who were, though.

The National Retail Federation estimates that China supplies 42 percent of all apparel, 73 percent of household appliances and 88 percent of toys sold in the United States.

The government has already imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. 

President Trump has said he will decide on whether to impose duties on the remaining $300 billion in imports but hasn’t set a firm deadline.

. . . .

In a letter last month, over 170 shoemakers and retailers called on Mr. Trump to halt the trade war with China, which supplies almost 70 percent of shoes sold in the United States.

The industry cannot easily return shoe production to the United States, because labor costs are much higher here and there is little capacity for new production, said Matt Priest, chief executive of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.

. . . .

The impact will be greater on traditional retailers because they can’t adjust prices as quickly as online retailers, Mr. Cohen said. 

“This is going to cause more stores to close and more people to lose their jobs,” he added.

So far in 2019, American retailers have announced plans to shut more than 7,000 stores, after announcing nearly 6,000 closings last year, according to Coresight Research. 

Those numbers include liquidations of chains like Payless ShoeSource and Gymboree and store closings by healthier companies like Gap Inc. and Victoria’s Secret.

By the end of 2019, announced closings could climb to 12,000 stores, Coresight estimated.

The tariffs could also hurt the broader economy at a time when recession worries have moved to the forefront. 

The retail sector has shed 50,000 jobs since January.

The abortion war in Illinois

Illinois guarantees a woman's fundamental right to health care fundamental right to murder her children

As GOP-controlled states pass draconian bills that stomp on a woman's right to an abortion, Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law a bill that makes abortion a "fundamental right" in the Land of Lincoln.

The law, titled the Reproductive Health Act, immediately went into effect when Pritzker signed it on Wednesday. 

And it states that a "fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under the law of this State."

New Fox Poll: Democrats want Biden, or someone a heck of a lot like him

Fascinating poll results.

And it certainly looks like Trump has honed in on the right opponent.

Democrats want a steady leader, Biden leads Trump by 10 points

Biden tops the list of Democratic contenders with 32 percent support among primary voters. 

Bernie Sanders trails at 13 percent, Elizabeth Warren at 9 percent, and Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris both at 8 percent. 

Next is Beto O’Rourke at 4 percent, Cory Booker at 3 percent, and Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang each garner 2 percent.  

Julian Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tim Ryan receive 1 percent a piece.

Since March, Sanders is down 10 points, while Buttigieg (+7), Warren (+5), and Biden (+1) have gained ground.

. . . .

Overall, Democratic primary voters divide when choosing between a candidate with “high ethical standards” (52 percent) and one who can “defeat Donald Trump” (45 percent).

By a 74-23 percent margin, they prioritize nominating a candidate who will “unite Americans around shared beliefs” over “fight against extreme right-wing beliefs.”

They also prefer, by a 72-25 percent margin, their nominee provide “steady, reliable leadership” rather than “a bold, new agenda.”

Those prioritizing steady leadership go big for Biden (37 percent) over Sanders (12 percent). 

Support spreads more evenly among those wanting a candidate with a bold agenda:  Biden (21 percent), Sanders (17 percent), Warren and Buttigieg (12 percent each), and Harris (11 percent).

Biden leads among those Democrats wanting a uniter (+20 points) and a fighter (+13), and he is the choice for both those preferring a candidate with high ethical standards (+12) and one who can beat Trump (+27).

. . . .

Trump trails the Democrat in each of the possible 2020 head-to-head matchups tested and never gets above 41 percent support. 

At the same time, none of the challengers hits 50 percent.

Did they really ask about all twenty odd Democrats?

Biden tops Trump by 10 points (49-39 percent) and Sanders is up by nine (49-40) -- both of these leads are outside the poll’s margin of error. 

Warren has a two-point edge over Trump (43-41), and Harris (42-41) and Buttigieg (41-40) are up by one (within the margin of error).

. . . .

Some 70 percent of Democrats don’t believe a politician with low moral standards can be a good leader compared to just 48 percent of Republicans.

Democrats prioritize supporting a candidate who is highly ethical over one who shares their views on major issues by 6 points. 

It is more lopsided, in the opposite direction, for Republicans, as they put issues over ethics by 42 points.

Abortion is sure to be a hot issue for both sides in 2020. 

Views split: 50 percent of voters think abortion should be legal all (31 percent) or most of the time (19 percent), while 46 percent say it should be illegal all the time (12 percent) or except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother (34 percent).  

Most Democrats (68 percent) say it should be legal and most Republicans (68 percent) say illegal.

Overall, 64 percent of voters think the Supreme Court should let Roe v. Wade stand, and a 61 percent majority opposes their state passing a law similar to ones in Alabama and Georgia that ban abortion in all cases other than to save the life of the mother.

Conducted June 9-12, 2019 under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company (R), this Fox News Poll includes interviews with 1,001 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide who spoke with live interviewers on both landlines and cellphones. 

The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters, and 4.5 points for Democratic primary voters (449).

Not that I object, but it's worth asking why.

It's not like we're in South Africa and the Apartheid regime has just now fallen, and the danger of violence was such that Desmond Tutu and other liberals felt called upon to step up and head it off.

In those days, the point of official remembrance and reconciliation was to heal divisions and head off a very real threat.

Is the point of this in Maryland that, or the exact opposite?

Deliberate stoking of the flames?

Point or not, what will be the effect?

Maryland Has Created A Truth Commission On Lynchings – Can It Deliver?

Aliza Worthington writes at C&L,

Kelebogile Zvobgo, University of Southern California – Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Between 1850 and 1950, thousands of African American men, women and children were victims of lynchings: public torture and killings carried out by white mobs.

Lynchings were used to terrorize and control black people, notably in the South following the end of slavery.

Yet despite the prevalence and seriousness of the practice, there has been an “astonishing ab.sence of any effort to acknowledge, discuss, or address lynching,” reports the Equal Justice Initiative, the leading organization conducting research on lynchings.

Until now.

In April 2018, the National Memorial for Peace and Justice – the first lynching memorial in the U.S. – was opened in Montgomery, Alabama. 

In December of the same year, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a bill that defined lynching as a federal crime.

More recently, in April 2019, the state of Maryland established a truth commission to investigate the lynchings of at least 40 African Americans between 1854 and 1933.

The legislation that authorized the truth commission, Maryland HB 307, was sponsored by Maryland House Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk.

Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee in February 2019, Peña-Melnyk said that the commission would be an opportunity “to send the message that the lives of the 40-something people really mattered.” 

Written with the help of the Maryland Lynching Memorial Project and endorsed by the Equal Justice Initiative, the bill passed with strong bipartisan support just two months later.

The commission has the potential to educate the public about dozens of lynchings – some of which occurred with the knowledge or direct involvement of local, county and state government entities. 

The commission can also provide the opportunity for reconciliation between the families of those who were responsible and the families of those who were killed.

She reads it that way, too

FEC Chair: It’s Illegal To Accept Election Help From Foreign Governments

Bernie's attack on "oligarchy"

He attacks capitalism while evading the question what is the socialism he actually favors over capitalism.

Just as he did during the campaign of 2016.

Bernie Sanders defines his vision for democratic socialism in the United States

When we talk about oligarchy, let us be clear about what we mean. 

Right now, in the United States of America, three families control more wealth than the bottom half of our country, some 160 million Americans. 

The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 92% and 49% of all new income generated today goes to the top 1%. 

In fact, income and wealth inequality today in the United States is greater than at any time since the 1920s.

He says he is going to tell us what he means by "oligarchy" and then he does not.

To claim this word means anything else than what it actually means is just lying.

noun, plural ol·i·gar·chies.

1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class orclique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

Taken literally, every government in the world today is an oligarchy, including any republic, no matter how benign.

But historically the word has usually been understood to mean government by a minority not itself subject to any legal, constitutional, or political control.

In short, absolute or despotic government by a few.

And that is not what Bernie is ranting about and we in America do not live under any such government.

He is ranting about capitalism.

He begins by reciting statistics about income and wealth inequality, both of which are inescapable under capitalism and have never been actually escaped under socialism.

"Wealth inequality" as he uses it is another label for private ownership of the means of production, the defining feature that differentiates capitalism from socialism.

He continues, quoting more statistics, many truly disturbing, in a like tone of furious rage.

And when we talk about oligarchy, it is not just that the very rich are getting much richer. 

It is that tens of millions of working-class people, in the wealthiest country on earth, are suffering under incredible economic hardship, desperately trying to survive.

Today, nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty and tonight, 500,000 people will be sleeping out on the streets. 

About half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck as tens of millions of our people are an accident, a divorce, a sickness or a layoff away from economic devastation.

While many public schools throughout the country lack the resources to adequately educate our young people, we are the most heavily incarcerated nation on earth.

After decades of policies that have encouraged and subsidized unbridled corporate greed, we now have an economy that is fundamentally broken and grotesquely unfair.

Ignoring history, pretending somehow we should have expected quite the opposite, he complains.

Globally, the situation is even more shocking with most of the world’s wealth concentrated among a very few, while billions of people have almost nothing. 

Today, the world’s richest 26 billionaires now own as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet – half of the world’s population.

Only after this savage denunciation of the object of his lifelong hatred does he address politics.

Across the globe, the [fictitious - PV] movement toward oligarchy runs parallel to the growth of authoritarian regimes – like Putin in Russia, Xi in China, Mohamed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary among others.

These leaders meld corporatist economics with xenophobia and authoritarianism. 

They redirect popular anger about inequality and declining economic conditions into violent rage against minorities — whether they are immigrants, racial minorities, religious minorities or the LGBT community. 

And to suppress dissent, they are cracking down on democracy and human rights.

He continues with a by now commonplace and absurdly hyperbolic comparison of our own time to the 1930s.

This authoritarian playbook is not new. 

The challenge we confront today as a nation, and as a world, is in many ways not different from the one we faced a little less than a century ago, during and after the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Then, as now, deeply-rooted and seemingly intractable economic and social disparities led to the rise of right-wing nationalist forces all over the world.

He extends the comparison over several paragraphs and then returns to the demons of the present, according to him.

Today, America and the world are once again moving towards authoritarianism — and the same right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism and xenophobia are on the march, pushing us to make the apocalyptically wrong choice that Europe made in the last century.

Today, we now see a handful of billionaires with unprecedented wealth and power.

We see huge private monopolies — operating outside of any real democratic oversight and often subsidized by taxpayers – with the power to control almost every aspect of our lives.

They are the profit-taking gatekeepers of our health care, our technology, our finance system, our food supply and almost all of the other basic necessities of life. 

They are Wall Street, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex and giant agri-businesses.

They are the entities with unlimited wealth who surround our nation’s capitol with thousands of well-paid lobbyists, who to a significant degree write the laws that we live under.

Today, we have a demagogue in the White House who, for cheap political gain, is attempting to deflect the attention of the American people away from the real crises that we face and, instead, is doing what demagogues always do — and that is divide people up and legislate hatred. 

This is a president who supports brutal family separations, border walls, Muslim bans, anti-LGBT policies, deportations and voter suppression.

It is my very strong belief that the United States must reject that path of hatred and divisiveness — and instead find the moral conviction to choose a different path, a higher path, a path of compassion, justice and love.

It is the path that I call democratic socialism.

And yet what he calls for is far from that, and this champion of Eugene Debs knows that very well.

So why does he call it that?

God knows.

But the fix he calls for is not far from what the first Roosevelt, TR, himself urged in 1912.

Today, in the second decade of the 21st century, we must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry it to completion.

This is the unfinished business of the Democratic Party and the vision we must accomplish.

In order to accomplish that goal, it means committing ourselves to protecting political rights, to protecting civil rights – and to protect economic rights of all people in this country.

As FDR stated in his 1944 State of the Union address: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

Today, our Bill of Rights guarantees the American people a number of important constitutionally protected political rights. 

And while we understand that these rights have not always been respected and we have so much more work to do, we are proud that our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, a free press and other rights because we understand that we can never have true American freedom unless we are free from authoritarian tyranny.

Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.

We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights.

That is what I mean by democratic socialism.

Still, this is true and fair enough.

Let me be clear. I do understand that I and other progressives will face massive attacks from those who attempt to use the word “socialism” as a slur. 

But I should also tell you that I have faced and overcome these attacks for decades — and I am not the only one.

Let us remember that in 1932, Republican President Herbert Hoover claimed that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was, “a disguise for the totalitarian state.”

In 1936 former Democratic New York Governor and presidential candidate Al Smith said in a speech about FDR’s New Deal policies, “Just get the platform of the Democratic Party and get the platform of the Socialist Party and lay them down on your dining-room table, side by side.”

When President Harry Truman proposed a national health care program, the American Medical Association hired Ronald Reagan as their pitchman.

The AMA called the legislation that stemmed from his proposal “socialized medicine” claiming that White House staff were, “followers of the Moscow party line.”

In 1960, Ronald Reagan in a letter to Richard Nixon wrote the following about John F. Kennedy: “Under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx.”

In the 1990s, then Congressman Newt Gingrich claimed President Bill Clinton’s health care plan was “centralized bureaucratic socialism.”

The conservative Heritage Foundation has claimed that the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was “a step towards socialism.”

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner claimed the stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill and the budget proposed by President Barack Obama were “all one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment.”

In this regard, President Harry Truman was right when he said that: “Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years…

"Socialism is what they called Social Security. 

"Socialism is what they called farm price supports. 

"Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. 

"Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.”

If you are the Trump family, you got $885 million worth of tax breaks and subsidies for your family’s housing empire that is built on racial discrimination.

When Trump screams socialism, all of his hypocrisy will not be lost on the American people. Americans will know that he is attacking all that we take for granted: from Social Security to Medicare to veterans health care to roads and bridges to public schools to national parks to clean water and clean air.

When Trump attacks socialism, I am reminded of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”

And that is the difference between Donald Trump and me. 

He believes in corporate socialism for the rich and powerful.

I believe in a democratic socialism that works for the working families of this country.

And then he adopts a line taken by liberals at least since Dewey regarding "true freedom".

(Google "persuasive definition" and "No true Scotsman")

What I believe is that the American people deserve freedom – true freedom. 

Freedom is an often used word but it’s time we took a hard look at what that word actually means.

Ask yourself: what does it actually mean to be free?

Are you truly free if you are unable to go to a doctor when you are sick, or face financial bankruptcy when you leave the hospital?

Are you truly free if you cannot afford the prescription drug you need to stay alive?

Are you truly free when you spend half of your limited income on housing, and are forced to borrow money from a payday lender at 200% interest rates.

Are you truly free if you are 70 years old and forced to work because you lack a pension or enough money to retire?

Are you truly free if you are unable to go to attend college or a trade school because your family lacks the income?

Are you truly free if you are forced to work 60 or 80 hours a week because you can’t find a job that pays a living wage?

Are you truly free if you are a mother or father with a new born baby but you are forced to go back to work immediately after the birth because you lack paid family leave?

Are you truly free if you are a small business owner or family farmer who is driven out by the monopolistic practices of big business?

Are you truly free if you are a veteran, who put your life on the line to defend this country, and now sleep out on the streets?

To me, the answer to those questions, in the wealthiest nation on earth, is no, you are not free.

. . . .

In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfil that vision. Our job, 75 years later, is to complete what Roosevelt started.

That is why today, I am proposing a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights that establishes once and for all that every American, regardless of his or her income in entitled to:

• The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
• The right to quality health care
• The right to a complete education
• The right to affordable housing
• The right to a clean environment
• The right to a secure retirement

Over the course of this election my campaign has been releasing — and will continue to release — detailed proposals addressing each of these yet to be realized economic rights.

We will also address the attacks that are being launched each day against the civil rights and civil liberties of our people.

And then the cat is out of the bag for all this oligarchy stuff.

At the end of the day, the one percent may have enormous wealth and power, but they are just the one percent. 

When the 99 percent stand together, we can transform society.

These are my values, and that is why I call myself a democratic socialist.

At its core is a deep and abiding faith in the American people to peacefully and democratically enact the transformative change that will create shared prosperity, social equality and true freedom for all.

Biden and abortion. And litmus.

Nothing in this Guardian story indicates opposition to Roe per se, though.

Biden in 2006 video: 'I do not view abortion as a choice and a right'

A 2006 video of Joe Biden unearthed by CNN on Thursday shows the then senator saying he does not see abortion as “a choice and a right”.

“I do not view abortion as a choice and a right,” the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate said in a videotaped interview with Texas Monthly. 

“I think it’s always a tragedy. I think it should be rare and safe,” he added. 

“I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions.”

Biden backlash: will the frontrunner's early stumbles be his downfall?

The clip is the latest evidence of Biden’s inconsistent record on the issue. 

Last week, the former vice-president, a 2020 frontrunner, flip-flopped on his position on the Hyde amendment, a measure that prohibits the use of federal funding for abortions. 

One day after saying he supported the Hyde amendment, following backlash from Democrats, he dropped a position he had held for decades.

“If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code,” he told an audience at the Democratic National Committee’s African American Leadership Council Summit in Atlanta on 6 June.

In 1977 Biden voted against a compromise that would have allowed federal funds to be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest or concerns for the life of the mother. 

The compromise passed in that case, but in 1981 Biden voted again to remove them.

Also in 1981, Biden voted to let states overturn Roe v Wade, citing his background as a Roman Catholic at the time and calling the decision “the single most difficult vote I’ve cast as a US senator”.

In 2015, he described his views to the Catholic magazine America: “I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.”

But this is from the Washington Examiner.

Biden in 1974: Roe v. Wade 'went too far'

At the time, I thought so, too.

Still, even his worst enemies have found no quotes indicating a wish to see Roe overturned.

From Russia with Love

Wikipedia says:

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political or social discord in the United States.

The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a troll farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. 

Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media. 

Additionally, computer hackersaffiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) infiltrated information systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta, and publicly released stolen files and emails through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks during the election campaign. 

Finally, several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and damaging information on Clinton.

The Russian hackings during the campaign of 2016 of Podesta as well as Russian efforts to hack voting systems and databases in various states were illegal and there have been indictments.

. . . .

The FBI's work was taken over in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led a Special Counsel investigation until March 2019.

Mueller concluded that Russian interference "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations.

The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans, for unrelated charges.

The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.

Was Russian dissemination of fake news via pseudonymous social media accounts seeking to increase polarization and mistrust, fear, and loathing of our political institutions to the advantage of the anti-NATO, anti-EU demagogue illegal per se?

Apparently not.

Was acceptance of that help and cooperation in it by the Duce and his campaign illegal per se?

Apparently not.

Would such acceptance of help and cooperation in it by the Duce and his campaign right now, in his campaign for reelection, be illegal per se?

Maybe a little murkier.

But Trump will certainly not have been the first American politician or president to accept foreign meddling in our politics to advance his own fortunes or the success of his agenda.

'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners -- such as China or Russia -- or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, "I think maybe you do both."

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. 

"If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

. . . .

Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process.

"It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it," Trump said. 

"If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. 

"But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' 

"The FBI doesn't have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research."

Trump smashed months of FBI work to thwart election interference

Nearly two years ago, FBI Director Chris Wray set up an office tasked solely with stopping the type of Russian interference efforts that infected the 2016 campaign.

On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump undercut the whole operation in a matter of seconds.

In an ABC News interview, the president first proclaimed he would have no problem accepting dirt on his opponents from a foreign power, then said Wray was “wrong” to suggest the FBI needs to know about such offers.

The comments, according to interviews with nearly a dozen law enforcement veterans, have undone months of work, essentially inviting foreign spies to meddle with 2020 presidential campaigns and demoralizing the agents trying to stop them. 

And it has backed Wray into a corner, they added, putting him in a position where he might have to either publicly chastise the president and risk getting fired, or resign in protest.

Trump Is Assailed for Saying He Would Take Campaign Help From Russia

Mr. Trump’s defiant declaration that “I’d take it” if Russia again offered campaign help and his assertion that he would not necessarily tell the F.B.I. about it drew bipartisan condemnation on Thursday, fueling calls for legislation requiring candidates to report such offers to the authorities and emboldening Democrats seeking his impeachment.

The furor shifted the discussion in Washington away from obstruction of justice and back to the original issue that had dogged Mr. Trump since his election in 2016. 

Although the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, found no illegal conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, the president’s comments renewed questions about his willingness to profit from the aid of a hostile foreign power.

Lindsey Graham appears to have renewed a strand of criticism now about two years old that acceptance of information or other aid is either a violation of the campaign finance laws [a prohibited in-kind contribution] or a violation of the emoluments clause.

But then many of his critics taking this line seem to think his hotels getting paid by foreigners who stay in them is a violation of the emoluments clause.

And his golf courses?

“If a public official is approached by a foreign government offering anything of value, the answer is no — whether it be money, opposition research,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close ally of the president who said he spoke with Mr. Trump on Thursday about the matter.

But most Republicans seem to be fine with accepting campaign aid, even from Russia.

At least when this president does it.

[But see also Napolitano quoted at C&L.]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats used the moment to advance legislation to require candidates to report to the authorities any effort by foreign governments to influence American elections. 

But when Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, sought to pass such a bill by unanimous consent Thursday afternoon, Republicans blocked it.

. . . .

Other Democratic presidential candidates pounced on Mr. Trump as well. 

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said a president should not “abet those who seek to undermine democracy.”

Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey each called Mr. Trump’s comments “disgraceful.” 

And Senator Kamala Harris of California said the president was “a national security threat.”

The outpouring of criticism was touched off Wednesday when Mr. Trump said in an interview with ABC News that he would gladly take incriminating information about a campaign opponent from adversaries like Russia and saw no reason to call the F.B.I., as the bureau’s director, Christopher A. Wray, a Trump appointee, said campaigns should do.

“I think I’d take it,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. 

He scoffed at the idea of calling the F.B.I. “Give me a break — life doesn’t work that way,” he said. 

When Mr. Stephanopoulos noted that the F.B.I. director said a candidate should inform the bureau, Mr. Trump snapped, “The F.B.I. director is wrong.”