Monday
Jan062020
The Commentariat -- January 7, 2020
Afternoon Update:
Nicole Gaouette & Jennifer Hansler of CNN: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday defended the basis for killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani because of the threat of an imminent strike but declined to present any evidence, saying President Donald Trump's decision was 'entirely legal.'... Pompeo ... didn't offer any evidence of looming threats, but instead referred to past events that he said Soleimani was responsible for." The story will be updated. ~~~
~~~ Watch that POS lie to Andrea Mitchell about Trump's repeated threats to destroy Iran's cultural sites. Ken W. posited in today's comments that Pompouspeo is a chicken. Pompeo went on the teevee to prove it (again) today:
Jeff Stein & Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post: "... administration officials have begun drafting sanctions against Iraq after President Trump publicly threatened the country with economic if it proceeded to expel U.S. troops, according to three people briefed on the planning.... Such a step would represent a highly unusual move against a foreign ally that the United States has spent almost two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars supporting. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations, emphasized talks were preliminary and no final decision has been made on whether to impose the sanctions." The Hill has a summary of the WashPo report.
Eric Tucker of the AP: "The killing of a top Iranian general has ratcheted up the anxiety of families of Americans held in Iran, one month after the release of a New Jersey student had given them hope. The Trump administration has made a priority of bringing home hostages held abroad, but the prospect of a forthcoming resolution for the handful of captives in Iran seems to have dimmed with the two nations edging dangerously close to conflict and warning of retaliatory strikes and continued agitation."
Burgess Everett & Marianne Levine of Politico: "Senate Republican leaders are preparing to move forward on a set of impeachment trial rules without Democratic support. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the verge of having sufficient backing in his 53-member caucus to pass a blueprint for the trial that leaves the question of seeking witnesses and documents until after opening arguments are made, according to multiple senators. That framework would mirror the contours of President Bill Clinton’s trial and ignore Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's demands for witnesses and new evidence." Mrs. McC: The reporters don't mention that during Clinton's impeachment trial, Ken Starr's witch hunt had got plenty of first-hand evidence, from Monica Lewinsky to Bill Clinton's deposition & DNA. Claiming the Trump rules "mirror" the Clinton rules is a crock when you figure in, as is necessary, Trump's forceful stonewall.
~~~~~~~~~~
Allan Smith of NBC News: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the House will vote soon on a war powers resolution to limit ... Donald Trump's military actions after he ordered the killing of a top Iranian general last week, escalating tensions with Tehran. 'Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials,' Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues Sunday. 'This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran. As members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe,' she continued. 'For this reason, we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.' She said the House resolution is similar to one introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Sarah Ruiz-Grossman of the Huffington Post: "The Trump administration blocked Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's top diplomat, from entering the United States, Foreign Policy reported Monday. The diplomat planned to come to the U.S. to address the United Nations Security Council in a meeting on Jan. 9, when he was expected to speak on the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani by the U.S. Unnamed diplomatic sources ... said [the move] violates a 1947 agreement with the U.N. that the U.S. allow foreign officials into the country for U.N. affairs. A Trump administration official called U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday to tell him Zarif would not be allowed in, a source told Foreign Policy.... The Iranian mission to the U.N. told HuffPost that, as of late Monday, it had not yet received 'any official word' from the U.S. or U.N. on Zarif’s visa." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: A great way to garner more sympathy for Iran. Shades of Rudy, but worse. New York Times (Oct. 25, 1995): "A day after Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani expelled Yasir Arafat from a concert for world leaders at Lincoln Center, the Clinton Administration sharply criticized the Mayor yesterday for what Washington officials called an embarrassing breach of international diplomacy. Mr. Giuliani, clearly relishing the controversy, insisted that he could never forgive and play host to Mr. Arafat even though the Palestinian leader has been embraced as a peacemaker by the Israeli and United States Governments." ~~~
~~~ Mike Baker & Caitlin Dickerson of the New York Times: "More than 100 people of Iranian descent appear to have [been detained by Customs & Border Protections agents] at Washington [state]'s border with Canada over the weekend, a process Gov. Jay Inslee described on Monday as the inappropriate 'detention' of people -- some of them United States citizens — who had done nothing wrong.... Border agents often require people seeking admittance at the border to undergo a process known as secondary screening -- which appears to have occurred in Washington, and in lesser numbers at other ports of entry. An agency official told members of Congress on Monday that leaders in local offices had been 'asked to remain vigilant and increase their situational awareness given the evolving threat environment.' A half-dozen people of Iranian descent who were held for additional questioning in Washington described extensive questioning about their family and background.... Legal advocates at a Monday news conference in Seattle described several cases of travelers being questioned about their feelings about the United States and what was happening in Iran.”
Oops! They Really Don't Know WTF They're Doing. Lolita Baldor & Robert Burns of the AP: “For a few tense hours Monday, the United States appeared to have announced that American troops were pulling out of Baghdad after nearly 17 years.... 'Here's the bottom line, this was a mistake,' Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said as he tried to unravel a knot of miscommunication.... The bungled message started when a draft letter from Marine Brig. Gen. William Seely began circulating on social media. Addressed to an official at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, the letter said U.S. troops would be 'repositioning forces' to prepare for 'onward movement.' Seely added, 'We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure.' The 'order' Seely mentioned was a reference to the Iraqi parliament's vote over the weekend to expel U.S. troops after an American drone attack killed a top Iranian general in Baghdad. A flurry of news reports followed Seely’s letter, saying the United States was ending its military presence in Iraq. But after a few hours of denials and frantic phone calls, top Pentagon leaders tried to do damage control, stating flatly that the U.S. had no plans to leave and saying the letter was a poorly worded draft that never should have gone out. 'Nobody's leaving,' Milley said. 'There's no onward movement. Honest mistake.'" ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Maybe Milley should say the same thing about the assassination of Suleimani: "POTUS* is an idiot. Didn't mean to kill anybody. Honest mistake.” ~~~
~~~ Update. According to Rachel Maddow, the letter was not just "circulating on social media." It was delivered to Iraq's defense minister. Here's how the AP report puts it: "It's not entirely clear who leaked the letter. According to Milley, the draft was circulated to key Iraqi officials as part of a coordination process to let them know about ... increased helicopter movements. Officials say it was first posted on the website of an Iranian-backed militia group." Here's a photo of the letter.
Farnaz Fassihi & David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times: "In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government's National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday. It was a startling departure for the Iranian leadership. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Tehran had almost always cloaked its attacks behind the actions of proxies it had cultivated around the region."
New York Times live updates (Tuesday): "Iranian state-run news outlets reported a deadly stampede during the funeral procession for Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani in his hometown, Kerman, in southeastern Iran, on Tuesday. Millions were reported to have flooded the town's streets to witness the procession for the general.... At least 35 may have been killed, one news service reported, according to The Associated Press.... The general's body had been flown to Kerman after a funeral in Tehran on Monday that had brought even bigger crowds into the streets of the Iranian capital." An AP story is here. ~~~
~~~ New York Times live updates (Monday): "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wept and offered prayers over the coffin of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani at the funeral in Tehran on Monday, as throngs of people filled the city's streets to mourn.... Ayatollah Khamenei had a close relationship with the general, who was widely considered to be the second most powerful man in Iran. The military commander was hailed as a martyr, and his successor swore revenge during the funeral ceremony, while chants of 'Death to America' rang out from the crowds in the capital." An AP story is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~
AFP: "The US killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was meant to cripple Tehran's clout in the Middle East, but analysts see the allies of the Islamic Republic closing rank instead."
Peter Baker of the New York Times: "For three years, President Trump's critics have expressed concern over how he would handle a genuine international crisis, warning that a commander in chief known for impulsive action might overreach with dangerous consequences. In the angry and frenzied aftermath of the American drone strike that killed Iran's top general, with vows of revenge hanging in the air, Mr. Trump confronts a decisive moment that will test whether those critics were right or whether they misjudged him. 'The moment we all feared is likely upon us," Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and vocal critic of Mr. Trump, wrote on Twitter over the weekend. 'An unstable President in way over his head, panicking, with all his experienced advisers having quit, and only the sycophantic amateurs remaining. Assassinating foreign leaders, announcing plans to bomb civilians. A nightmare.'... [Trump] faces enormous skepticism from the critics who have long warned that he was too erratic to face moments of crisis.... [But] And some experts on the [Mideast] region suggested that Mr. Trump's very unpredictability was a deterrent in itself...." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: What Baker doesn't acknowledge is that this is a crisis of Trump's own making: first, by cancelling the nuclear deal with Iran, then by imposing crippling sanctions on Iran, then by overreacting to the murder of a U.S. contractor by making multiple strikes on militia sites, then by overreacting to protesters' attacks on the U.S. embassy in Tehran by assassinating Suleimani. So we already know how Trump "responds" to a crisis: (1) he creates it, and (2) he makes it worse & worse. ~~~
~~~ Paul Krugman: "... Trump's latest attempt to bully another country has backfired -- just like all his previous attempts. From his first days in office, Trump has acted on the apparent belief that he could easily intimidate foreign governments.... That is, he imagined that he faced a world of Lindsey Grahams, willing to abandon all dignity at the first hint of a challenge. But this strategy keeps failing; the regimes he threatens are strengthened rather than weakened, and Trump is the one who ends up making humiliating concessions.... Under his leadership, we've become nothing more than a big, self-interested bully.... Trump officials seem taken aback by the uniformly negative consequences of the Suleimani killing.... But that's what happens when you betray all your friends and squander all your credibility." ~~~
~~~ Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times: "After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation, has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.... The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this.... The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the 'Iranian menace' -- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.... It's hard to see how this ends without disaster."
Peter Baker & Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper ... on Monday [ruled] out military attacks on cultural sites in Iran if the conflict with Tehran escalates further, despite President Trump's threat to destroy some of the country's treasured icons. Mr. Esper acknowledged that striking cultural sites with no military value would be a war crime, putting him at odds with the president, who insisted such places would be legitimate targets.... 'We will follow the laws of armed conflict,' Mr. Esper said at a news briefing at the Pentagon when asked if cultural sites would be targeted as the president had suggested over the weekend. When a reporter asked if that meant 'no' because the laws of war prohibit targeting cultural sites, Mr. Esper agreed. 'That's the laws of armed conflict.'" The AP story is here. Mrs. McC: Note how Esper evades a direct answer, even as -- when pressed -- he goes further than Pompeo did Sunday when asked the same question. The correct answer to the first question is "POTUS* is an idiot. Of course the U.S. doesn't target cultural sites. We aren't gonna do it." ~~~
~~~ Lara Jakes of the New York Times: "More than 2,300 years ago, the Persian capital of Persepolis was burned by a foreign warrior in a fatal blow to the empire and its rich heritage. The ruins of the ancient city, in modern-day southwest Iran, could now be on President Trump's target list of 52 sites he has threatened to attack as tensions escalated between Washington and Tehran.... But the targeting of cultural sites is against international law, and critics denounced Mr. Trump for his statement.... The United States is a signatory to a 1954 international agreement to protect cultural property in armed conflict. Violating it attacks on Iran's historical sites would represent a huge turnabout. The United States was among the harshest critics of the Islamic State's destruction of antiquities in Mosul, Iraq, and Palmyra, Syria, as well as the Taliban's obliteration of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.... By Sunday, under the hashtag #IranianCulturalSites, a Twitter campaign cropped up in the form of history buffs taking verbal aim at Mr. Trump's threat." See also unwashed's commentary below. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Rick Noack of the Washington Post: "By suggesting strikes on '52 Iranian sites,' including some that are important to 'the Iranian culture,' Trump threatened a way of waging war that has drawn growing outrage in decades, critics argued Monday.... 'Targeting civilians and cultural sites is what terrorists do. It's a war crime,' tweeted Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In Britain, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson cautioned that 'there are international conventions in place which prevent the destruction of cultural heritage.'... In March 2017 -- only weeks after Trump's inauguration -- the U.N. Security Council, with the United States as a permanent member, unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the 'unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, inter alia destruction of religious sites and artefacts' in armed conflicts.... But with a U.S. president now threatening to attack cultural sites in Iran, the narrative that the United States helped to advance now appears in doubt." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ John Bellinger in Lawfare: "On Sunday, Jan. 5, President Trump -- as he is wont to do when criticized — doubled down on his threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites if Iran attacks the United States in response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which makes intentional attacks on historic monuments a war crime, the United States is a party to the 1954 Hague Convention on Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which the Senate approved in September 2008, when I was legal adviser.... Trump and Vice President Mike Pence should learn the domestic and international law rules that govern the use of military force and the conduct of military operations and to understand why they are important." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait: "The unfolding Iran adventure seems to open once again the question of what principle, if any, defines this president's foreign policy. Isolationism? Nationalism? Whatever Fox News is demanding at any given moment? His real North Star is in fact an idea he has explicated many times, but -- perhaps because it is so horrifying -- even his critics seem hesitant to accept as a true motivation. Trump's plan is to collapse the moral space between America and its enemies.... Our enemies are stronger and tougher, [Trump believes,] willing to do the hard things that mut be done in order to win. To defeat them, we must become like them. Trump has long dismissed respect for human rights, international law, and innocent life as a form of political correctness.... The protective cordon surrounding Trump has eroded as his first term draws to a close, and it would be foolish to assume [aides] will necessarily succeed in stopping his latest unthinkable act.... From [his] premise that the authoritarians of the world are strong and correct, and its (small-d) democrats are politically correct fools, his broader recasting of America's alliances makes perfect sense. Of course he would draw the United States closer to Russia, the Gulf States, and the emerging autocrats of Europe...." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
** Wild Card. Nicholas Fandos & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, said on Monday that he was willing to testify at President Trump's impeachment trial if he was subpoenaed. 'I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify,' Mr. Bolton said in a statement on his website. The development is a dramatic turn in the impeachment proceeding, which has been stalled over Democrats' insistence on hearing from critical witnesses Mr. Trump blocked from testifying in the House inquiry.... Mr. Bolton is a potential bombshell of a witness, with crucial knowledge of the president's actions and conversations regarding Ukraine that could fill out key blanks in the narrative of the impeachment case. His willingness to tell the Senate what he knows ratchets up pressure on Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has refused to commit to calling witnesses at the impeachment trial, to change his stance. It is unclear how the White House will respond to Mr. Bolton's declaration, but his statement strongly suggested that he would testify regardless of whether Mr. Trump sought to prevent him." Politico's story is here. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Like me, Ed Kilgore of New York is not all that convinced that John Bolton would be the great game-changer some prognosticators anticipate. Kilgore: "For all we know, this career-long defender of presidential power may share the White House's view opposing disclosure of virtually any communication between the president and his staff. And even if he throws shade at some of his rivals on that staff, or joins many Trump defenders willing to throw Rudy Giuliani totally under the bus, it's a big leap from there to 'Trump's removal from office.' You may be wondering why Bolton suddenly decided to testify after deferring to the courts to determine whether a House subpoena would persuade him to testify. It's likely because any Senate subpoena would actually be signed by the Senate trial's presiding officer, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and no inferior federal judge would be likely to brush that aside." ~~~
~~~ Marianne Levine & John Bresnahan of Politico: "Despite John Bolton's willingness to testify about the Ukraine scandal, the GOP-controlled Senate has no immediate plans to subpoena him in ... Donald Trump's impeachment trial -- a win for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House. While Democrats have called for testimony from Trump's former national security adviser, so far there's no sign that they will secure support from four Republicans they would need to follow through on their demand.... On Monday, [GOP Sens. Susan] Collins and [Lisa] Murkowski both signaled they wanted to begin the trial first. 'I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton,' Collins said, echoing McConnell's argument. 'I think that we will decide at that stage who we need to hear from.'... Even vulnerable Republicans, such as Cory Gardner of Colorado, who faces a competitive reelection race in 2020, expressed no interest in hearing from Bolton." ~~~
~~~ Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said on Monday that he wants to hear from John Bolton after the former White House national security adviser offered to testify in President Trump's impeachment trial if subpoenaed. Romney told reporters ... that he wants to hear from Bolton and find out 'what he knows' about Trump's dealings with Ukraine." ~~~
~~~ Jordain Carney: "Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on Monday that she supports delaying a decision on which, if any, witnesses should testify until after the start of President Trump's impeachment trial. With that decision Murkowski aligns herself with the process advocated by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and bolsters the chances that Republicans -- absent an 11th hour deal with Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- will be able to force through their own impeachment rules. 'I think we need to do what they did the last time they did this ... and that was to go through a first phase, and then they reassessed after that,' Murkowski told reporters after leaving McConnell's office." Mrs. McC: My, it does sound as if Mitch is a very good arm-twister. ~~~
~~~ Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post: "Facts subsequent to the House impeachment have become known that directly pertain to Trump's conduct and, to boot, a critical witness is now suddenly available. Do Senate Republicans try to sweep all that under the rug, risking that Bolton will later tell his story publicly and incriminate a president whose misdeeds the Senate helped cover up?... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is in the driver's seat because she wisely held up the articles of impeachment. She can now turn to the Senate and say: Agree upon rules for the trial that guarantee Bolton's and other key witnesses' appearance or we will hold on to the articles and subpoena Bolton ourselves.... It is now time for all of them, including Bolton, [Mick] Mulvaney, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey ... and White House national security aide Robert Blair ... to do their civic duty and step forward. Moreover, it's time for senators to do their duty and uphold their oaths as senators and as jurors."
Maybe This Guy Wants to Testify, Too. Wesley Morgan & Connor O'Brien of Politico: "Eric Chewning, chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mark Esper, is stepping down at the end of the month, the latest in a series of high-profile civilians to leave the Pentagon. He'll be replaced by Jen Stewart, the top Republican staffer on the House Armed Services Committee and a former top adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, according to a statement from Pentagon spokeswoman Alyssa Farah.... Chewning was featured in a recently released trove of unredacted emails that show Pentagon officials' concerns with the legality of White House moves this summer to hold up military assistance to Ukraine, an issue at the center of ... Donald Trump's impeachment.... Chewning ... wrote that a memo to OMB, which warned that the Ukraine aid was in danger of not being fully spent by the end of the fiscal year, will have to wait until after a September meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Poland. 'We expect the issue to get resolved then,' he wrote to [acting Pentagon comptroller Elaine] McCusker." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Rachel Maddow is interested in knowing what-all pence was going to tell Zelensky that would "resolve the issue." And it makes me wonder how it's possible that pence, who was tasked with getting the issue with Zelensky resolved, also "was unaware of Trump's efforts to press Zelensky for damaging information about Biden and his son.... Officials close to Pence contend that he traveled to Warsaw for a meeting with Zelensky on Sept. 1 probably without having read -- or at least fully registered -- the transcript of Trump's July 25 call with the leader of Ukraine. White House officials said that Pence probably would have received the detailed notes of the president's call in his briefing book on July 26. The five-page document also should have been part of the briefing materials he took with him to Warsaw to prepare for the meeting...." That's the wholly improbable cover story pence aides gave the WashPo. It's as if Pheidippides ran from Athens to Sparta but didn't deliver the message because it hadn't "fully registered." (As it happens, the Spartans were a lot like Zelensky: they got the message but they didn't fulfill the request.)
Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News: "Federal prosecutors told a judge Monday they are prepared to release sealed materials in search and seizure warrants against Roger Stone issued during the FBI probe into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington opted for the government's proposed 60-day timeline to hand the sealed court records over to a coalition of media outlets that sued for the secret materials last year.... Cooper was randomly assigned the case after U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Stone's trial, recused herself based on a conflict with a member of the media coalition."
Tess Owen of Vice: "A senior employee at a for-profit immigrant detention center in Nevada was active on the neo-Nazi site Iron March and aspired to establish a white nationalist chapter in his area.Travis Frey, 31, is currently employed as a captain at the Nevada Southern Detention Center, which is run by private prison behemoth CoreCivic and contracted with ICE. Frey joined Iron March in 2013, and posted at least a dozen times between 2016 and 2017 while he was working as head of security at a CoreCivic jail in Indianapolis, which was also authorized to house detainees on behalf of ICE.... On Iron March, Frey used the screen name 'In Hoc Signo Vinces,' a Latin phrase that's used by military outfits around the world, and by universities, and was the title of the American Nazi Party's manifesto. VICE News was able to identify Frey ... through some of the personal information he provided on Iron March...." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: But we sure Owen didn't bring his virulent racist proclivities to work.
Presidential Race
Caitlin Oprysko of Politico: "Julián Castro on Monday threw his backing behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president, only days after suspending his own bid for the White House. 'There's one candidate I see who's unafraid to fight like hell to make sure America's promise will be there for everyone, who will make sure that no matter where you live in America or where your family came from in the world, you have a path to opportunity, too,' Castro says in a video announcing his endorsement." The New York Times story is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
Senate Race, Kansas. Maggie Haberman, et al., of the New York Times: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday told Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, that he does not plan to run for Senate in 2020, most likely ending Republicans' hopes of securing a potentially dominant candidate for the open seat in his home state of Kansas, according to four people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Pompeo, a former congressman from the Wichita area, has quietly explored a campaign for months. But in the aftermath of the military operation last week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran. Mr. Pompeo has told senior party officials that he is ruling out becoming a candidate, according to several people who have spoken with him directly." Politico has the story here.
Jan Ranson & Jose Del Real of the New York Times: "The Los Angeles County district attorney, Jackie Lacey, said [Harvey] Weinstein [was] charged [Monday] with one felony count each of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery by restraint [in the cases of two women he (allegedly) accosted at a Hollywood film festival in 2013]. He faces up to 28 years in prison if convicted.... Only hours before prosecutors in Los Angeles unveiled the new case against Mr. Weinstein, he had hobbled with a walker into a courtroom in Manhattan for a hearing on the eve of his long-anticipated rape trial there. Jury selection was to begin on Tuesday." An AP story is here.
News Lede
CNN: "A 6.4-magnitude earthquake rocked Puerto Rico early Tuesday morning, just one day after a 5.8 magnitude quake shook the island, according to the US Geological Survey. The 6.4 quake struck at 3:24 a.m. local time about 6 miles south of Indios, Puerto Rico, the USGS said. The mayor of Guayanilla, just north Indios, reported damage to homes and a church. There were no immediate reports of injuries, Mayor Nelson Torres said in a phone interview with CNN affiliate WAPA."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (13)
Cowichan's Opinion was just posted on Jan. 5: I'm reposting it here:
See photos of the mob mourning Soliemani? Almost as many as attended trump's inauguration!
If indeed there is an immanent attack targeting Americans in the ME, the plans have already been drawn up and issued to the various Iranian directed terrorist groups and well known to Soliemani's 2nd in command. Stopping a terrorist attack is just another crock of repub BS.
I know Pompeo is a certified warrior--the kind who is willing if not eager to go toe to toe with anyone he's sure he can browbeat-- but I'm wondering if early Kansas poll numbers might be telling him that months of Pretender-splaining have sullied him beyond retrieval, even in his old stomping grounds.
@Ken Winkes: You're onto something there. A mid-December poll showed Pompeo in a statistical tie with the horrible Kris Kobach in the GOP primary race. It would be humiliating for the (former) Secretary of State to lose to a bozo like Kobach.
When I looked at Pompeo's election record on his Wikipedia page, he was never in a close race. Even as a novice running in a GOP primary, he beat his closest competitor by 15 points.
Weinstein's walker is about the cheapest you can get, with the tennis balls included. The legal team must have picked it up at CVS enroute to the court.
If he really needed one to get around, you know he'd have one of the high-end ones, with the folding seat, basket, handbrakes and large wheels. But one of those would evoke less pity. Not that anyone would find him pitiable in this case.
Exactly what I thought, Patrick! Cheap trick...
I would like Bolton to simply disappear. He decided to be dramatic and get the hopes up of people who would like to hear him smear the Presidunce* but he is definitely up to no good. Charlie Pierce said he wouldn't trust him any further than a car threw him (Charlie-- he is recovering from getting hit by a car--) and neither do I. Once a neocon, always...etc.
I like to go back and remember how Fatty fooled so many and the one thing that has stuck in my craw was what he said in "The Art of the Deal."
"I play to people's fantasies." and he goes on...
"People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those that do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular.
I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration–– and a very effective form of promoting."
And as we have seen this man of "spectacular" operations has been the shatterer of norms–-the breaker of laws– the liar-in-chief-and now, something we feared would happen has taken place. What will come of this? This narcissistically damaged actor has finally got himself in real trouble–-what script will he be trying to manipulate? When the curtain comes down on this sorry performance where will WE be?
@Patrick: I noticed the same thing about Weinstein's walker. I bought my husband a nice-looking one with a seat & a basket to put stuff in. It also folded up, so Weinstein doesn't have the excuse that he needed to get a cheap one because that's the only kind that would fold up in the courtroom. Medicare paid for a portion of the cost of my husband's walker, and we had to pay the difference. It was not a big cash outlay; most people who actually needed walkers could afford to pay the difference. Weinstein's tennis-ball walker, as you surmise, has to be a stunt. I'm betting the juries are smart enough to figure that out.
Weinstein the Rapist, if he’s looking to present a more sympathetic (as opposed to just pathetic) figure should call down to the Miramax prop department. They could outfit him with a pair of shuffle slippers, a torn shirt with a mustard stain down the front, and an ear trumpet.
On the other hand if he really wants to gain sympathy, he needs to be on the receiving end of an idiotic volley from President Backfire. It’s quite a feat to turn a predatory wolf like Soleimani into a sympathetic figure but Fatty did it without thinking.
Not only that, but his latest poorly thought out murder scheme has accomplished another amazing feat, uniting almost all of Iran behind the mullahs, even those Iranians who hope for a more democratic, secular society.
He’s almost beaten The Decider at the backfire game. It took Bush an invasion of a sovereign nation and an unnecessary war to unite the many warring factions in the Islamic Middle East. Fatty did it with a single killing.
Those Republicans. They can turn a day at the beach into “Moby Dick” quicker than Harvey Weinstein can say “Not guilty”.
Wonder if the new list of possible Iraq sanctions will include (as an outlier to make the other options appear more sane to the insane Pretender) will include another invasion, since it worked so well before.
If past is prologue, we know what the choice will be.
Remember the French resistance fighters of WWII? Remember their leader Charles de Gaulle? They shot Germans, didn't they? The French resistance ambushed Germans; they blew up Germans; they blew up German installations; they thwarted Germans in every way they could. We consider the resistance fighters great heroes.
I imagine that's how many Iranians think of Soleimani & his fighters. This is not something Donald Trump can figure out because his tunnel vision does not allow him to imagine anyone else's POV, even when circumstances are nearly identical -- albeit with the tables turned.
"I read the news today, oh boy, the english army had just won the war..."
No. I couldn't read one more word of news today, so I decided to just look at images.
BBC world service/australia has an amazing interactive map of all the fires in Australia this season. It also has a history of all the recorded fires in Australia. It's astonishing, in a way. It looks like the whole country is exploding.
CNN has many images of the earthquake in PR. They are dramatic, and depressing for this ignored island. It's been through so much.
So just looking at images doesn't let one escape either.
"All the people stopped and stared..."
That image of pompeo makes me want to get out my drone and send it his way.
Marie,
I've thought the same thing for many years. I'm betting most MAGA hat wearing droolers have no idea that the British considered George Washington a terrorist (along with passel of other American revolutionaries revered today).
They also either don't know or don't care that there are many good reasons Iran hates the United States. The US (and Britain) through the actions of the CIA (and MI6) kneecapped Iranian PM Mohammad Mosaddegh who fought for nationalization of Iranian oil fields (anathema to British and American politicians who believed Iranian oil--very much like Trump--belonged to them) and pushed for a more secular, democratic society.
After overthrowing Mosaddegh, the US ensured the despotic control of the Shah of Iran who, after Mosaddegh was imprisoned (and soon thereafter died), instituted a vicious police state overseen by his secret police operation, SAVAK, responsible for imprisoning, torturing, and murdering tens of thousands of Iranians considered persona non grata by the effete, depraved, US approved Shah.
When Iranians had had enough (the revolution of 1979), the Shah fled and was given succor and protection by the US.
What patriotic Iranian would think that was a good thing? Especially any of the hundreds of thousands of Iranians whose families, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, had been tortured by the Shah's leg breakers?
So Iranian enmity toward the US is well earned and should be considered to play a role in any relationship between the two countries.
Instead, Fatty declares that the 52 Americans held hostage (and returned alive and un-tortured) deserve the destruction of the same number of Iranian cultural and religious sites. This is a bald attempt to try to call up the hostage situation in an ahistorical bid to whip up hatred of the Trumpbots. It's not unlike Hitler demanding that Paris be destroyed because French resistance fighters, responding to his murderous occupation, blew up trains and shot Gestapo agents.
It's too simplistic to rip Fatty for his ignorance. But R's who claim to be history savants (Graham, Cruz, etc) should understand the problem.
...what to say about that except...
Traitors. Lying, ignorant, asshole, self-serving traitors.
@Akhilleus: Exactly right.