The Commentariat -- January 9, 2018

As the Sheeples Cheer. Michael Shear & Jim Tankersley of the New York Times: "President Trump delivered an economic victory lap during a speech to farmers on Monday in which he vastly overstated the size of the tax cuts passed by Congress late last year and played up a rollback of regulations on American businesses. Declaring that the 'American dream is roaring back to life,' Mr. Trump -- who has made clear that he likes big numbers -- claimed that the tax overhaul cut taxes by $5.5 trillion when, in fact, the legislation will reduce the overall tax burden on individuals and companies over the next decade by $1.5 trillion.... Mr. Trump apparently chose to highlight just one side of the ledger -- the total amount of tax reductions in the bill that he signed in December -- without counting the amount of taxes that were increased in the same legislation to help pay for the bill.... To applause from thousands of farmers in the audience, Mr. Trump said the tax cut would exempt most family farms from the estate tax.... In reality, only about 80 small businesses and farms would fall under the estate-tax tent this year.... The new law, which exempts more estates from the tax, will primarily benefit the richest Americans." ...

... Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post: "According to Trump, the rising market is evidence of how awesome his presidency has been for the U.S. economy. At one point, he even touted a confused (i.e., wrong) claim that equity market increases were tantamount to wiping out our national debt.... Stock markets don't reflect the underlying health of the economy. Or the financial security of the middle class. Or any other broader measure of social welfare, for that matter.... Markets can also fall, making it super risky to tie your administration's success to stock prices. Stock prices have been rising fairly consistently since March 2009, meaning we're already in the second-longest bull market on record.... if the media were to judge presidents by stock performance, Obama would actually look better than Trump." ...

Jen Kirby of Vox: "A mix of cheers and boos roared through Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia, as ... Donald Trump took the field before the College Football Playoff National Championship between the University of Alabama and University of Georgia on Monday night.... College players traditionally stay inside the locker rooms until after the National Anthem, so the ... two teams vying for the championship weren't on the field during Trump's appearance." ...

... Jacqueline Thomsen of the Hill: "An Alabama football player yelled 'f[uck] Trump' as he took the field at the College Football Playoff national championship on Monday, which was attended by President Trump. Alabama running back Bo Scarbrough yelled the expletive as the team walked onto the field for the game, according to a clip shared by Sporting News." ...

... Who Said "Fuck Trump"? John Talty of AL.com: "Alabama running back Bo Scarbrough denied yelling 'F[uck] Trump' before Monday night's College Football Playoff National Championship Game. Sporting News posted a video clip on its Twitter account that quickly gained steam showing someone yelling "F[uck] Trump" as the Alabama players walked through the halls of Mercedes-Benz Stadium to the field. Sporting News identified Scarbrough as the Alabama player who said it...." Mrs. McC: In the Sporting News video, Scarbrough is out of frame at the moment someone says "Fuck Trump," & I couldn't see anyone in-frame moving his lips in sync with "Fuck Trump."

Andrew Marantz of the New Yorker on the Trump-"Fox & Friends" feedback loop. A teevee show ostensibly about the news is romancing the Trump. It's pretty sickening.

"The Worst & the Dumbest." Paul Krugman: "This great nation has often been led by mediocre men, some of whom had unpleasant personalities. But they generally haven't done too much damage, for two reasons. First, second-rate presidents have often been surrounded by first-rate public servants.... Second, our system of checks and balances has restrained presidents who might otherwise have been tempted to ignore the rule of law or abuse their position.... When the V.S.G. [Very Stable Genius] moved into the White House, he brought with him an extraordinary collection of subordinates -- and I mean that in the worst way.... While unqualified people are marching in, qualified people are fleeing.... Meanwhile..., leading Republicans in Congress are increasingly determined to participate in obstruction of justice." ...

... AND Yet. And Yet. Mrs. McCrabbie: I find myself agreeing, in general & in a number of specifics (tho not all), with David Brooks today.

Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post: "Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has raised the likelihood with President Trump's legal team that his office will seek an interview with the president, triggering a discussion among his attorneys about how to avoid a sit-down encounter or set limits on such a session, according to two people familiar with the talks. Mueller brought up the issue of interviewing Trump during a late December meeting with the president's lawyers, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. Mueller deputy James Quarles, who oversees the White House portion of the special counsel investigation, also attended. The special counsel's team could interview Trump very soon on some limited portion of questions -- possibly within the next several weeks, according to a person close to the president who was granted anonymity to describe internal conversations." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...

... Matt Apuzzo & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "... Robert S. Mueller III told President Trump's lawyers last month that he will probably seek to interview the president, setting off discussions among Mr. Trump's lawyers about the perils of such a move.... White House officials viewed the discussion as a sign that Mr. Mueller's investigation of Mr. Trump could be nearing the end. But even if that is so, allowing prosecutors to interview a sitting president who has a history of hyperbolic or baseless assertions carries legal risk for him.... One person familiar with the discussions said Mr. Mueller appeared most interested in asking questions about the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, and the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey...." ...

... Investigating the Investigators, Ctd. Kyle Cheney of Politico: "Broadening their political counterattack in defense of the White House..., Donald Trump's allies in Congress are placing new scrutiny on contacts between top Justice Department officials and reporters covering the Trump-Russia investigation.... On Thursday, Republicans demanded more information from the Justice Department officials about a meeting Andrew Weissman, a career federal prosecutor now on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigative team, held with reporters last April. In a Jan. 4 op-ed, [Rep. Mark] Meadows [R-N.C.] and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to be replaced, citing in part an 'alarming number of FBI agents and DOJ officials sharing information with reporters.' Last month, House Republicans cast public suspicion on communication they say occurred in the fall of 2016 between former FBI general counsel James Baker and a Mother Jones reporter who wrote stories at the time about the FBI's probe of Trump-Russia ties.... Republicans have offered no evidence of wrongdoing.... Democrats call the focus on reporter contacts the latest front in a wide-ranging campaign by some GOP lawmakers to discredit the Russia probe.... They also warn that Republicans are seeking to intimidate government officials and chill investigative reporting." ...

... John Solomon of the Hill: "Republican-led House and Senate committees are investigating whether leaders of the Russia counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the news media that resulted in improper leaks, prompted in part by text messages amongst senior FBI officials mentioning specific reporters, news organizations and articles. In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues." ...

... Betsy Woodruff & Spencer Ackerman of the Daily Beast: "In recent months, congressional negotiators have been working on a bill codifying an umbrella of mass-surveillance activities known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The authorization for those activities is due to expire in a matter of days. But [House Intelligence] Chairman Devin Nunes [R-Trumpsylvania] threw a monkey wrench into the process, by initially pushing to include in the bill an unrelated a provision on so-called unmasking, the process that intelligence agencies use to reveal the names of U.S. persons who may be involved in crimes like spying.... Nunes' effort played a role -- though a minor one -- in slowing down negotiations.... Nunes was ultimately forced to strip the provision.... What distinguished it, multiple Hill and intelligence sources told The Daily Beast, was that it was the only unforced error in the process -- the result of Nunes' effort to resurrect a controversy members of his own party have dismissed. Reauthorizing the program is the top legislative priority of the Justice Department...."

Jonathan Martin of the New York Times reviews Fire & Fury. ...

... ** See, at the top of today's thread, Elizabeth's commentary on fact-checking, vis-à-vis Fire & Fury. Essential reading.

... Oops! Matt Shuham of TPM: "Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka wrote Monday that he had been told to participate in Michael Wolff's blockbuster book, 'Fire and Fury.'... In an op-ed in the Hill, he wrote..., '[W]hen I met Michael Wolff in Reince Priebus' office, where he was waiting to talk to Steve Bannon, and after I had been told to also speak to him for his book, my attitude was polite but firm: "Thanks but no thanks."'..." Gorka wrote." ...

... Addy Baird of ThinkProgress: "Gorka -- in an effort to stand by his man — has confirmed that Wolff did indeed have access to the White House and that staffers were asked to speak with him for the book. After Mediaite ran a piece about Gorka's accidental admission, Gorka responded on Twitter, saying that the '[r]equest to please @MichaelWolffNYC the hack came from outsite @WhiteHouse....'" ...

     ... Mrs. McCrabbie: These people are not too bright. Besides the gaffe, the guy can't spell: "outsite @WhiteHouse?" (Normally, I would not pick on someone who learned English as a second language, which Gorka likely did -- his parents were Hungarians & he did post-grad work in Budapest. But he was born in London, went to school & university there & lived there until he was 22. He should have learned to spell "outside.") ...

... These People Were Not "Outsite @WhiteHouse." Olivia Beavers of the Hill: "Michael Wolff ...said Monday both current and former top White House officials encouraged other aides 'to cooperate' in interviews for the book. 'Everybody was told to speak to me,' Wolff said in an ... interview ... on CNN's 'Tonight with Don Lemon.' '[Stephen] Bannon told people to cooperate, Sean Spicer told people to cooperate, Kellyanne Conway told people to cooperate, Hope Hicks,' he said respectively about the president's former chief strategist, former press secretary, senior adviser and current communications director."

Miriam Jordan of the New York Times on the Trump administration's latest deportation extravaganza: this time, 200,000 Salvadorans who have enjoyed temporary protection status for more than a decade. Mrs. McC: once again, this isn't just cruel; it's stupid. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...

... Vivian Yee, et al., of the New York Times: "... immigrants from Haiti and Central America ... have staked their livelihoods on the temporary permission they received years ago from the government to live and work in the United States. Hundreds of thousands now stand to lose that status under the Trump administration, which said on Monday that roughly 200,000 immigrants from El Salvador would have to leave by September 2019 or face deportation. Even if they remain here illegally, they, like the young immigrants known as Dreamers whose status is also in jeopardy this winter, will lose their work permits, potentially scratching more than a million people from the legal work force in a matter of months. And the American companies that employ them will be forced to look elsewhere for labor, if they can get it at all.... [A] report, by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, estimates that stripping the protections from Salvadorans, Hondurans and Haitians would deprive Social Security and Medicare of about $6.9 billion in contributions over a decade, and would shrink the gross domestic product by $45.2 billion." ...

... John Cassidy of the New Yorker: "These days, it's almost as if there are two Donald Trump Presidencies. One is a circus performed daily on Twitter and cable news. The other Presidency, which has to do with policy formulation and implementation, receives less attention, but it is more consequential because it is hurting the welfare of millions of people.... While the President lolls about the White House watching Fox News, the Administration he heads is busy trying to implement the agenda he has championed.... One notable area where they are seeing success is the targeting of legal immigrants. Yes, legal.... Even though Trump himself appears to spend much of his time goofing off and spouting off, his minions are far more diligent in targeting some of the most marginalized and defenseless members of society. Amid all the craziness, that should never be overlooked."

... Billions for Bupkis. Ron Nixon of the New York Times: "The Trump administration would cut or delay funding for border surveillance, radar technology, patrol boats and customs agents in its upcoming spending plan to curb illegal immigration -- all proven security measures that officials and experts have said are more effective than building a wall along the Mexican border. President Trump has made the border wall a focus of his campaign against illegal immigration.... Under spending plans submitted last week to Congress, the wall would cost $18 billion over the next 10 years, and be erected along nearly 900 miles of the southern border. The wall also has become a bargaining chip in negotiations with Congress as lawmakers seek to prevent nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants from being deported. But security experts said the president's focus on a border wall ignores the constantly evolving nature of terrorism, immigration and drug trafficking."

Steven Mufson of the Washington Post: "The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power plants struggling in competitive electricity markets. The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding.... [Perry's] plan ... was widely seen as an effort to alter the balance of competitive electricity markets that federal regulators have been cultivating since the late 1980s. Critics said it would have largely helped a handful of coal and nuclear companies, including the utility FirstEnergy and coal-mining firm Murray Energy, while raising rates for consumers."

And Another One Bites the Dust. Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post: "House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward R. Royce said Monday he will not seek reelection this year, adding his name to a growing list of senior Republican lawmakers who have chosen to retire in what is shaping up to be a difficult election year for the GOP. Royce (R-Calif.), first elected in 1992, is one of eight House Republican chairmen who have announced they will forego a reelection campaign for the House ahead of the midterm elections. Like most of the others, he would have lost his gavel in the next Congress in accordance with party rules that place a three-term limit on a chairman's service."

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court on Monday gave a black death row inmate in Georgia a chance to challenge his death sentence because a white juror in his case later used a racial epithet in an affidavit and questioned whether black people have souls. The justices stayed the execution last fall of Keith Leroy Tharpe, who was sentenced to death in 1991 for the murder of his sister-in-law, Jaquelin Freeman. He shot and killed Freeman and left her body in a ditch while kidnapping and later raping his estranged wife." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Pete Williams of NBC News: "The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over a Mississippi law that allows state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections. Signed into law in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, it allows county clerks to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and protects businesses from lawsuits if they refuse to serve LGBT customers. The law was immediately challenged. But lower courts, without ruling on the merits of the law, said those suing could not show that they would be harmed by it. A new round of challenges is expected from residents who have been denied service, and the issue could come back to the Supreme Court's doorstep." See also Akhilleus's commentary in yesterday's thread. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...

     ... Mrs. McCrabbie: Seems as if the Supremes may have declined to take the case because the law's challengers were deemed to have failed the "standing" test. That doesn't mean the underlying case doesn't have merit; it just means the challengers are going to have to find more convincing victims. That should be pretty easy. I'd guess there are already a number of Mississippi couples who were denied marriage licenses or were refused services because their names were John & Joe or Emily & Heather. (Also linked yesterday.)

** Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: "I loved Oprah's Golden Globes speech on Sunday. It was mesmerizing, pitch perfect, and gave voice to many lifetimes of frustration and vindication with eloquence and a full authority she has earned. But I found the strange Facebook response of 'Oprah 2020' weirdly discordant and disorienting. Oprah's speech -- in my hearing -- wasn't about why she needs to run for office. It was about why the rest of us need to do so, immediately. The dominant theme I heard was about giving voice to invisible people. It was the arc of the entire speech.... What Winfrey and [President] Obama talk about is the limits of top-down power. It is one of the great sins of this celebrity age that we continue to misread this message as a call to turn anyone who tries to deliver it into our savior. When someone tells you 'I alone can fix it,' you should run screaming for the emergency exits." Mrs. McC: A video of Oprah's speech is in the Infotainment column. I would have put it in the Commentariat, but that would mean it would disappear from the page more quickly. ...

... ** Mehdi Hasan in the Intercept: "Oprah Winfrey for president: have we all gone bonkers?... Is this really what most Americans want or what the United States government needs? Another clueless celebrity in possession of the nuclear codes? Another billionaire mogul who doesn't like paying taxes in charge of the economy? And how would it be anything other than sheer hypocrisy for Democrats to offer an unqualified, inexperienced presidential candidate to the American electorate in 2020, given all that they said about Trump in 2016? Granted..., Oprah would be a far superior, smarter, and more stable president than Trump in every imaginable way. But that, of course, is a low, low bar." Mrs. McC: An excellent argument against an unqualified, liberalish celebrity candidate. ...

... Steve M.: "An Oprah run [for the presidency] validates Donald Trump's political career -- hey, Trump was right, you don't need any experience and you don't need deep knowledge of domestic and foreign-policy issues. I'll change my mind if, come 2019, Oprah can address the issues in a way that transcends bumper-sticker slogans and platitudes.... Apart from that, my biggest problem with Oprah is her fondness for promoting quacks and charlatans -- the author of The Secret, for instance, or Dr. Oz.... If she's the Democratic nominee, I think Trump's team will portray him as a seasoned, deeply knowledgeable political veteran, while condemning her as a neophyte out of her depth.... I suspect she won't run. Celebrities at her level exercise a considerable amount of control over what the public gets to know about them, and you can't maintain that control if you're in politics."

... Also, Colbert's review of Jake Tapper's interview of Stephen Miller is pretty funny.

Beyond the Beltway

Robert Anglin of the Arizona Republic: "Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a militia member will not face a retrial on charges that they led an armed rebellion against federal agents in 2014. A federal judge Monday said the federal prosecutors' conduct was 'outrageous' and 'violated due process rights' of the defendants. U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro said a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward. She dismissed the charges against the four men 'with prejudice,' meaning they cannot face trial again.... Navarro's decision comes less than a month after she declared a mistrial in case and found that federal prosecutors willfully withheld critical and 'potentially exculpatory' evidence from the defense." Navarro is an Obama appointee.

If you're in danger of imminent arrest & detention, try to look good in your mugshot -- it could pay off. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)

Way Beyond

Choe Sang-Hun of the New York Times: "North Korea agreed on Tuesday to send athletes to February's Winter Olympics in South Korea, a symbolic breakthrough after months of escalating tensions over the North's rapidly advancing nuclear and missile programs. In talks held at the border village of Panmunjom, North Korean negotiators quickly accepted South Korea's request to send a large delegation to the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, next month, according to South Korean news reports. In addition to the athletes, the North will send a cheering squad and a performance-art troupe. The event will be the first time North Korea has participated in the Winter Games in eight years."

Comments

[Elizabeth]

A quick note about publishing and fact-checking, as regards "Fire and Fury." My guess is that this book was written quickly and published quickly. Wolff does not sound like an overly cautious writer, and he perhaps trusted too much in his memory, his notes, his experience and didn't do his own fact-checking, relying on the publisher to do that. Chances are the book was not line edited, the step normally prior to copyediting; and the copyediting may have been done so quickly that things like an incorrect name weren't checked. Editors will tend, rightly or wrongly, to assume the author hasn't made egregious errors and won't check things that seem obvious--like a name. But as noted yesterday, fact-checking is hard. It can lengthen the time it takes me to edit a book by as much as 25%. If there isn't time to check every date, every name, every news outlet, the copyeditor won't do it.

As for libel, when it comes to private citizens bringing a case of libel against an author/book/publisher, it is extremely hard to prove. In the case of a novel, the book is, so to speak, innocent until proven guilty; and essentially the plaintiff has to prove that 1) That's me in that book!, and 2) Everyone else in the world knows that it's me and everything is wrong! In the case of nonfiction books, celebrities, politicians, anyone in the public eye have little presumption of privacy. "Unauthorized biographies" abound. (One could even argue that Homer authored one about Odysseus.) Attempts to stop publications of books like these generally fail. And yes, the publisher's general counsel would have reviewed the book thoroughly for anything that could be considered libelous. I wouldn't be surprised if some changes were made to cover everyone's backsides.

It is unfortunate there was not more scrupulous fact-checking. These sorts of errors can be used as evidence that the whole book is fraudulent. But my concern is that, since the book doesn't seem to be telling us anything we didn't already know or assume, it is simply a continuation of what Trump is a "stable genius" at: distraction. Let's all hyperventilate about this new salacious book while surveyors are mapping out a road in ANWR and Sydney, Australia, is melting in record-setting heat.

[Marvin Schwalb]

So Trumps lawyers are trying to avoid a very stable genius from meeting with Mueller. This tells it all.

@Elizabeth, let me fill in one detail on your excellent post. The record-setting number is 117F. My dream is we hit that number in DC next summer.

[Patrick]

I can't help but think that it would be unprofessional for Mueller to depose DiJiT. Mueller knows that DiJiT cannot help lying, so just administering the oath would be a form of entrapment. And the U.S. public should not want to settle DiJiT's hash with another "lied to the FBI" charge. That would be a cheap shot.

If I were Mueller I'd act like I wanted DiJiT under the lamps, but ensure that I never made the deal with DiJiT's lawyers that would put him there.

[PD Pepe]

Many thanks to Elizabeth for her clear comments on fact checking.

Bill Blum, a former judge and death penalty defense attorney has written an in-depth piece on the Mueller investigation and lists the acts of destruction Mueller is no doubt considering. Blum says that if Trump uses the Fifth Amendment and declines to testify –––

"...those would be the acts of a coward––not unlike what we might expect from the weak, thin-skinned, unstable man described by Wolff in his best selling book––one that the president insists is a work of fiction."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trumps-obsessing-wrong-guy/

As much as I admire Oprah, I'd like to see her continue with the many things she does so well. I have no doubt her possible run for president would light up the sky–– this celebrity obsessed nation would delight in having Oprah give it a shot. But what does this say about all the savvy women politicians already in congress that have the experience, the legislative knowledge and the wish to run. The republicans seem to enjoy running celebrities––count them–--Reagan being the most beloved although he had experience as a governor. But can't we democrats show this country that we value substance over populace? (this is not to say Oprah lacks substance) or have we gone so far off course that candidates running for president have to be glittering shiny objects promising to cure all the ills and fix all the problems with their magic wands–-those bought at the Five and Dime.

[Akhilleus]

Elizabeth,

Excellent reminders of a) the importance of understanding that the cavalier, fact-free quality of statements from the Trumpies and their minions in congress does not mitigate (or inoculate) similarly cavalier responses, and b) not to pay so much attention to the sideshow that the main events are overlooked.

While Trump hogs the limelight, his brownshirts have been busy setting fire to reams of regulations, tearing up environmental protections, eviscerating immigration standards (note the latest group of non-whites to be attacked by Trump's Nazis, Salvadorans, who were given legal status by the Decider; how astounding is it that Bush, slaughterer of thousands, can be considered more of a humanitarian than the Orange Baboon?), and subverting norms in foreign relations and domestic policy creation, norms carefully developed and tested over decades if not longer.

And I completely agree with you that a few sloppy anecdotes presented alongside entirely truthful, fact-checked, and thoroughly corroborated statements of fact can undermine the whole project. That's all it takes to allow Sanders and Hannity and other pro-Trump jamokes to question the entire book, which they are doing, gleefully.

The idea, I'll suggest, is not that we're trying to convince Trump supporters of the essential unfitness of their Glorious Leader (good luck with that), but to present a well crafted case in the court of public opinion which might include those strange mythical voters, "the undecideds" , many of whom decided in favor of Trump last time 'round (See? Not really undecided after all.) It does seem a bit odd that facts are required to convince chimerical creatures, but there ya go.

[Akhilleus]

Patrick,

I dunno, man. I'm of two minds about giving fatso the third degree. First, he believes, as surely as he trusts Steve Doocy's doozies, that he is above the law, so setting him down in "the box" with bright lights in his puss would help settle that misunderstanding.

But, as you suggest, there can't be a single sentient being on the planet who thinks Trump won't lie through his teeth. Also, he'll walk out of any interview thumping his chest and shouting that he gave that Mueller what for and it's all lies anyway. So what's the point?

I guess if Mueller can make his case without Trump's lies, so be it. Still and all, he's not above the law, despite what he thinks, and sitting his fat ass down to answer questions is one way to remind him of that fact.

[Akhilleus]

PD,

There are many citizens of substance, but not all should be in elected office, never mind be president. As much as wingers love to hate politicians, there's something to be said for someone whose background includes hands-on experience with navigating the waters of legislative and policy creation. Sure, someone, like Oprah, without those chops can surround herself with the Pros from Dover, but she is still operating at the mercy of others. Even a few years' experience is better than none. I won't even bother pointing to the horrors of Trump ignorance and inexperience. He is the textbook case of sui generis in that regard.

But having to spend months and months just getting up to speed can be detrimental to one's agenda, and given the chance that she might only have four years to get something done, it's a bit of a crap shoot. It would be great to have a woman there, no doubt. We need it badly. But it should be the right person. Maybe that's Oprah, I don't know. It wasn't Hillary, that's for sure, but there are a lot of reasons for that. Inexperience was not one of them.

And, as Marie puts it, Oprah is responsible for foisting Dr. Phil AND Dr. Oz on the American public. We don't need anymore cranks, we're full up. Oprah Winfrey can serve the public effectively right where she is. Besides, the next president will have to bring a mop and bucket the size of Greenland to clean up after this shithead has been carried out in a straight jacket (or an orange jumpsuit). High minded rhetoric will be taking a back seat to down and dirty sand blasting of the Trump filth off the nation.

[Ken Winkes]

Related both to the rising stock market rise and to the likely instability (there's instability everywhere) of the Pretender economy?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/08/credit-card-debt-hits-new-record-raising-warning-sign/1014921001

The game of let's pretend goes on.

[Akhilleus]

So the little king is offering something, something, something (who knows what?) for his WALL. $18 billion over ten years and what do we get?

This.

Anyone in congress thinking of going along with this brainless bullshit needs to see a picture of the Maginot Line. It cost the French three billion francs (a lotta dough in 1930) and took ten years to construct. Time for the Germans to circumvent it? 45 minutes. Thanks for playing, boys, see you next time!

The Maginot Line didn't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work. The Berlin Wall wasn't impregnable either. Walled cities throughout history were routinely besieged and the inhabitants all slaughtered. Sieges were the Romans' favorite tactic during the Punic Wars. After Carthage was besieged, it was burned to the ground. Yeah, there's a Carthage today, but it took 'em over 2,000 years to replace it. The Walls of Jericho came tumbling down, and that only took a few decent trumpet players. Trojans found that their wall wasn't nearly so effective as they thought. Walls . Don't . Work. But, hey, Trump is smarter than anyone who ever lived. He's a very stable genius! HIS wet dream wall will be, like, the best ever, the greatest! Just like his casinos that all went belly up.

Congress can humor President Maginot for a couple of years but should not spend a red cent on this idiocy.

[Akhilleus]

If the terrorist is white, and not Mooslim, he can't be all bad.

Did you hear about the armed terrorist who hijacked an Amtrak train and tried to kill everyone on board by slamming on the brakes?

No? I didn't either. Know why?

Shh....(he's a white supremacist). The Trump administration didn't think it was such a big deal. In fact, they didn't even do a press release. No press conference, no media alerts, no breathless, 24/7 reports on Fox about how terr'ists is tryin' to steal our freeeedoms!

Why? White guy. Not just a white guy, a Nazi white guy (oh, wait, is there any other kind?) You know, one of those really nice people that Trump loves so much.

This guy is a piece of work:

"A subsequent FBI investigation, however, painted a disturbing portrait of an individual who escalated his radical activity in recent years as he built up a massive gun stash, even hiding weapons and extremist propaganda in a secret compartment behind his refrigerator.

In a court affidavit, the FBI agent who investigated the attempted terrorist attack said he’d learned that Wilson traveled with an 'alt-right Neo Nazi group' to the deadly 'Unite the Right' rally in Charlottesville in August; may have helped vandalize restaurants with 'whites only' stickers; pointed a gun at a black woman during a road rage incident; and spoke of 'killing black people' during recent protests against police violence in St. Louis.

But even when the federal terrorism charges were unsealed against Wilson last week, the case didn’t get a ton of national pickup. One key reason: The Justice Department didn’t tell anyone."

Got that? The Jeffbo Sessions "Justice" Department didn't tell anyone.

"The reporter who broke the story of the terrorism charges on Thursday evening, Lori Pilger of the Lincoln Journal Star, told HuffPost that she spotted the unsealed case when checking the federal court docket online."

Oops. Our bad.

But here's my favorite part:

"At the time of Wilson’s arrest, local authorities took a full day to inform the FBI, indicating they likely did not consider the incident a terrorist event at first. Wilson was found carrying business cards for the National Socialist Movement (America’s neo-Nazi party) and the Covenant Nation Church of the Lord Jesus Christ..."

Wait...Nazis have business cards?

It gets better. They charged the guy with "criminal mischief". Then they let him go!!

"Remarkably, Wilson was released by local authorities on a partially secured bond on Dec. 11. By the time of his release, the FBI was aware of Wilson’s extremist views, his involvement in two potential hate crimes, and his extensive weapons cache."

Just imagine the uproar had this guy been black. Or Muslim and black! But a white supremacist tries to kill a train load of people. Ahh...he's just a crazy mixed up kid. He'll be fine.

I'm reminded of a scene in the Peter Sellers movie, "Being There". A black woman who used to work as a maid in a rich man's house sees his former gardener, an illiterate idiot she used to feed, appearing on TV giving economic advice to the president. "It sure is a white man's world" she says.

Ain't it the truth?

And in the Age of Trump, it's a white supremacist's world.

[MAG]

@Ak: re Oprah, besides Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, let's not forget the "Eat, Pray, Love" author!

@KenW: ...as CNBC's Jim Cramer often says something like, "..bulls and bears make money, pigs get slaughtered." While this may be the second longest running bull market, there seem to be signs of caution appearing. When Jeremy Siegel at Wharton expressed bearish concerns for the first time that I can recall ...it must be that the alarm bells are going off. Wall Streeters would hope the rest of us remain deaf and gullible.

@BeaMcCrab: read David Brooks. I agree with his use of "a", "the", and "an." The rest of his piece, not so much. Thought the Reader Picks comments were sharp. And, the comments to the Jonathan Martin review even sharper! Good for Gemli, Stu and the rest!

@Elizabeth: Well stated about fact-checking and priorities!

In general, day after day most of us become overwhelmed
with head-spinning, head-swiveling, eyeball rolling news that putting our commentary focus on a ranked basis can go astray by overlooking the more serious concerns. A chart or checklist could come in handy. It appears Trump has his own...whatever Obama achieved, he'll overturn. Check. Whether it deals with DACA, environmental issues, fossil fuels vs. renewables, encroachment on public lands, off-shore drilling...if he can destroy whatever safety nets, rules and regulations are there for the protection of the citizenry, he'll do it. Check, Check, Check. and Check. etc. "Fire and Fury" whatever its faults has certainly become a provocative eye opener for a wider audience.
....And that ain't bad.

[safari]

The biggest thing I fear about an Oprah presidency would be the precedent it sets in motion: a fucking moron celebrity with NO experience replaced by an intelligent celebrity, also with NO experience in government. If they can make, anyone can make it. And what sort of signs would a string of inexperienced celebrities send to the world and our allies?

The idea of going from Obama to Trump to Oprah conjured images of someone's head jarring back and forth on a rough rollercoast, one of those brutal wooden ones. That head represents our nation. The wild policy changes, alternatively building up and tearing down, would cause chaos in our political system.

I can't even imagine the bile that would flow from the strengthening white nationalist GOP against Oprah after their overt tirades against Michelle Obama. They'd be so worked up they'd mobilize their whole base to oust her from the White House after her first term, and only another racist flame-thrower would get the nomination.

I'm all for diversity, but not diversity for diversity' s sake. And I'm very afraid an Oprah nominee talking up #TimesUp would send insecure white men nationwide scurrying for cover or pulling the lever for a known moron, just to preserve their white man entitlements for a little longer. As a group, us white men need special attention and you can't count on us for taking the right decision.

Right now, priority number one needs to be kicking Trump's ignorant ass of out the White House, and cleaning government of all his asshats. We need the best nominee possible who can garner a maximum number of votes in every demographic possible to overcome all the GOP authoritarian roadblocks. I'm not convinced Oprah's that person, even if she can give one hell of a speech.

[Patrick]

I don't dislike Oprah, but I don't watch her show, just like I don't watch (fill in the blank). I hope she does not decide to run, and from what I know of her, she's too intelligent to think that running would be a good idea.

We don't need just a good person as president, we need someone who brings other good people and provides some continuity of policy (see safari's roller coaster analogy; we need someone who knows how to drive a smooth train).

Politics and public service are professions. Even if the next viable candidate is not a pro, he/she should be someone who can recruit and use them, and who is part of the continuity of governance on which the country has operated for the past 70 years. Unfortunately, voters have become disillusioned with professional pols and public servants. But they are out there, and the D party should work hard to find someone who is both inspiring and knowledgeable ... and not old.

Who've we got?

[MAG]

Trying to work my way through the transcript just released by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of Glenn R. Simpson, the founder of research firm Fusion GPS, who spoke to investigators with the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 hours in August.

With the partisan fight over Russian interference in the 2016 election intensifying, Simpson urged that his testimony be released. It's out!

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/read-the-full-transcript-of-glenn-simpsons-senate-testimony/2700/

Expect it will get even more interesting, but I'm going mad with his "you know' interjections! These occur every other sentence, like 'you know, he keeps on saying it and saying it. You know! If the words were highlighted the transcript it would appear to have measles.

Back to the slough...