In Any Senate Judiciary Hearing Mueller Needs To Drop The Wallflower Pose And Emulate His WaPo Op Ed Tone

"The nation’s floundering government is now administered by a gangster regime. It is helpful to have this made obvious as voters contemplate renewing the regime’s lease on the executive branch. Roger Stone adopted the argot of B-grade mobster movies when he said he would not “roll on” Donald Trump. By commuting Stone’s sentence, Stone’s beneficiary played his part in this down-market drama, showing gratitude for Stone’s version of omertà (the Mafia code of silence), which involved lots of speaking but much lying."-  George Will, The Washington Post, 'The Nation Is In A Downward Spiral - And Worse Is Yet To Come'

In his Washington Post  op-ed piece of July 11th, former special prosecutor Robert Mueller was blunt in his defense of his probe, after arch criminal Roger Stone was sprung by Traitor Trump:

"The work of the special counsel’s office — its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions — should speak for itself. But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office. The Russia investigation was of paramount importance. Stone was prosecuted and convicted because he committed federal crimes. He remains a convicted felon, and rightly so. 

Russia’s actions were a threat to America’s democracy. It was critical that they be investigated and understood. By late 2016, the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled to a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate. And the FBI knew that the Russians had done just that: Beginning in July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen by Russian military intelligence officers from the Clinton campaign. Other online personas using false names — fronts for Russian military intelligence — also released Clinton campaign emails."

Adding:

"The jury ultimately convicted Stone of obstruction of a congressional investigation, five counts of making false statements to Congress and tampering with a witness. Because his sentence has been commuted, he will not go to prison. But his conviction stands. 


Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find."

Those words are powerful and direct, but clearly ought to have been enunciated loudly and directly when Mueller was being questioned by the House back in May, 2019.  Instead, the congressional questioners faced an almost wallflower special counsel - having  had to pry response after response out of Mueller's mouth. "Almost like pulling teeth" -- in Janice's parlance.  Worse, Mueller's punting and resistance to provide an aggressive response earlier had given AG Trump personal Bill Barr the opening to spin the Mueller investigation conclusion in his own way - i.e. as an "exoneration" of Trump.  It also energized the Trumpies and Barr to then begin bogus investigations to  go after the investigators. These are still going on in the background.

That ought to alarm Mueller even now, and one reason why he needs to  do a 180 in his presentation style if called to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He can begin by pointing out that he not only defined a conspiracy in an indictment of 12 GRU agents filed back in 2018, e.g.

[Read the indictment here.]

But also made it abundantly clear -  in Part 1 of his Mueller report,   i.e.

www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 that Trump was involved. The failure to press this case, in particular to demand Trump answer questions in person allowed the traitor to escape.   In the words of Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe at the time:   

"What we have here is a situation where the Mueller report shows without any doubt that a hostile foreign power attacked the United States in this (2016) election.  That Donald Trump welcomed that attack, benefited from it and then - the last couple of years - tried to cover it up every possible way. "

In addition,  former federal  prosecutor Mimi Rocah, appearing January 25, 2019 on 'All In' didn't mince words:

"There's just so many facts in this indictment about the coordination of the Trump campaign with Wikileaks, through Roger Stone. Remember that GRU indictment - if you go back to that- one of the objects of the conspiracy is not just hacking but hacking and disseminating.  You can't look at them alone, you have to go back to everything we know, the Trump Tower meeting, the calling out by Trump to Russia (to grab Hillary's emails)...there's just so many other things."

A de facto conspiracy by any other name.

All of which is 'ammo'  and a template Mueller can use to energetically justify his probe, especially as Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham has vowed to call him after his WaPo piece.  ("If he can write that in the Washington Post he can appear before our committee!") .  He can then directly assert why he is absolutely not accepting the Trump twaddle that it was "an illegal witch hunt that should never have taken place.".   

Indeed, we who were disappointed by Mueller's passive, halting, pathetic performance last year want to see more of the  junkyard dog we know (from his past) he can be:  roaring, snarling and not taking any guff or recycled spin and conspiracy bunkum from Lindsey Graham or any other Repuke Senators.  Particularly as we know they will claim the investigation went overboard or was part of a conspiracy to damage Trump.  This would echo the codswallop that the WSJ's top conspiracy -spinning hack (Kimberley Strassel) has been pushing for the past three years e.g.

• Kim Strassel - Unable To See The "Conspiracy Theor...

This despite the 434-page report issued by Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluding the FBI had an “authorized purpose” when it initiated its investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, into the Trump campaign.  

In the words of MSNBC All In host Chris Hayes, when the IG report highlighted above came out, referring the the Right's cockeyed "Fusion GPS-Steele dossier-  Hillary-  Comey- FBI"   conspiracy to take down Trump:

"The obvious problem with this theory is that it makes no sense. Remember this, during the campaign the only investigation that became public was the one regarding Hillary Clinton, which arguably lost her the election. But the FBI was investigating Trump at the very same time. No one uttered a word about it. If they were so desperate to bring Trump down you'd think someone would have said something.  They didn't. So the whole conspiracy theory doesn't even hold together."

Indeed, Mueller must smash this insipid balderdash so completely into oblivion that it's never promoted again by any Trumpies.   One other thing:   no  genuine patriot wants to see any weak reading from sections of the Mueller report.  Or advising any senators to do so,  referring  to "X chapter and section." No, what we want is to see the same spirit  and direct, no-nonsense replies such as manifest in the WaPo op-ed: a non-reading, non-droning, electric recitation of why Mueller was right to conduct such an investigation of Trump's criminal clique and especially Stone.  Also, why any specious, DOJ- sponsored counter probe into the Mueller team or former Obama DOJ personnel is giving protection to the enemy and purely in the service of the traitor fouling the White House.

See Also:

Peace & Justice | Roger Stone

Roger's Back, and So Begins Another Shitty Week in the Good Ol' USA

And:Donald TrumpRoger Stone

Why Trump Fears Roger Stone

by Steven Harper | July 13, 2020 - 7:34am | permalink

And:

Donald Trump | Impeachment

Trump Must Be Impeached and Removed for Commuting Roger Stone's Sentence. Rule of Law Demands It.

Yes- If Repuke Senators Ignore Bolton's Revelations & Acquit Trump They Are Guilty Of Treason Too

"The idea that the Democrats, not Mr. Trump’s campaign staffers, conspired with foreign operatives is more than “conspiracy theory.” It is a fascist ploy to turn lies into truth. This is why I said recently that Mr. Trump’s crime is so much worse than abuse of power. It’s treason."  - John Stoehr, ('When Does Ordinary Republican Partisanship Become Treason' ,   The Baltimore Sun)

Barely hours before former national security adviser  John Bolton released blockbuster contents on Trump's quid pro quo vis -a -vis the Ukraine (in his soon to be published book) the orange maggot traitor tweeted this about Adam Schiff Sunday:

"Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price yet for what he has done to our country!"

Schiff, appearing on 'Meet the Press' Sunday correctly interpreted this as a threat.  Of course,  given Trump consistently projects his own vile attributes onto others (mainly critics, Dems)  his tweet must be reversed to read  i.e. 

"I, Donald Trump am a CORRUPT POLITICIAN (and TRAITOR!) and am a very sick man.  I have also not yet paid the price for what I have done and am doing to this country!"

But will this human vermin pay? As the Senate trial winds on, in the midst of the criminal resident bragging openly about obstruction, e.g.

• Trump brags: ‘We have all the material, they don’t’                     

and two days earlier, caught on a video bellowing "Take her out!" - referring to Marie Yovanovitch - barking the order to henchman  Lev Parnas .  e.g.

Donald Trump

Trump Talks Like a Mafia Don on Tape Calling for Removal of Ukraine Ambassador

There is more than ample evidence to hold this swine to account, and even hang him as the traitor he is, especially after Bolton's revelations, namely that Trump wanted to continue freezing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until it helped to investigate the Bidens.

  See e.g.

• Analysis: Bolton’s bombshell gives the GOP a glimpse of its nightmare scenario
• Analysis: Bolton’s book undercuts Trump defense team’s claims that there are no firsthand witnesses

This directly contradicts what the Traitor's defense team has been arguing, i.e. that "there is no connection between security assistance and investigations."    They peddled this bunkum yesterday along with the Kremlin -generated codswallop (by Trump stooge Pam Bondi) that Ukraine was the real culprit in 2016, in conjunction with Burisma & the Bidens.  Then there was the addle-pated Alan Dershowitz again repeating the canard that impeachment required an actual violation of a federal criminal statute. (Never mind none were even written at the time the Founders inserted the impeachment clause).

   But now, with John Bolton's material ("like a grenade exploding" according to one pundit)  Trump and his team of liars...errr, lawyers,  are boxed into a corner.   (Trump of course denies he told Bolton anything about withholding aid, but we already know this orange Orang lies like he breathes.)  At the very least, Bolton's ms. confirms all we've seen and heard from earlier House inquiry witnesses, like Fiona Hill and Gordon Sondland.  That means the decision of whether to allow Bolton as a witness puts the Repuke Senators on trial along with the traitor.    Got nothing to hide? Then demand Bolton appear as a witness! 

If they refuse to allow Bolton to appear as a witness - at least - far less remove their criminal traitor Overlord,  then yes, they are also traitors. They can be nothing less. Especially in the guise of Trump's derelict lawyers now accusing Democrats of "trying to overturn the 2016 election" - echoing the orange pestilence himself.

Of course, today's  WSJ editorial ('John Bolton's Report', p. A16) insists the Bolton revelation being a "bombshell" is mere "media hype."  Also, if Trump did do it there's still no impeachable offense given "Ukraine never opened an investigation and the U.S.  aid was delivered on time."  Failing to grasp, as usual, that an attempted crime is still a crime.  If Mr. X attempts to embezzle $1m from his company then changes his mind midway through, he's still committed a crime and can be locked up for years.   So the WSJ's "arguments" - like those of Trump's stooge lawyers- amount to balderdash and bare bollocks.



Here's the bottom line: If their guy has nothing to hide, and they themselves want the full evidence they've been claiming the House Dems didn't provide- they have no choice other than to call Bolton to testify.  If they do not, they are in the same cover up, stone wall and obstruction mode as their master.

 One must then ask, if these Trump cultists punt,  if the 'Grand Old Party'  has transitioned from hyper -partisanship to treason.  A recent Baltimore Sun article  ('When Does Ordinary Republican Partisanship Become Treason' by John Stoehr), argues this has been done, e.g.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-1205-treason-republicans-trump-20191204-b4r43waqcfbtfe7hhjfgjcsixu-story.html


Let's go through Stoehr's essay and assess how close he is to the truth in his assertion. He writes:

"It bears repeating: Donald Trump was not only press-ganging Volodymyr Zelensky in an illegal scheme for partisan gain. He was rewriting the history of 2016 in order to wound enemies (Democrats) and help friends (Vladimir Putin) — as well as to give Kremlin operatives room to strike again. It is in no way overstating the case to say the president of the United States is the head of an international conspiracy to defraud the American people. "

There should be no issue on this, period. We have the evidence, the documents and Trump himself threatening  and even bragging about his alliance with Putin in a criminal conspiracy. 

If anyone is into valid conspiracies (like the one behind the JFK assassination)  this is indeed the one to accept because it is closest to the truth of all the ones out there right now.  We know  the Trump team had  more than 100 meetings - that we know of -  with Russians, including GRU intelligence agents.  Specifically in "Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration,"   The NY Times tracked down "more than 100 in-person meetings, phone calls, text messages, emails and private messages on Twitter," all made by "at least 17 campaign officials and advisers [who] had contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries."

Robert Mueller not only defined a conspiracy in the case of an indictment filed against 12 GRU agents in 2018, but made it public, E.g.   

[Read the indictment here.]

Mueller  also - if you read part one of his report-  made it clear Trump was involved in this  conspiracy.  As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe elegantly summed up earlier this year ('Last Word' with Lawrence O'Donnell):

"What we have here is a situation where the Mueller report shows without any doubt that a hostile foreign power attacked the United States in this (2016) election.  That Donald Trump welcomed that attack, benefited from it and then - the last couple of years - tried to cover it up every possible way. "

Text messages, phone records, foreign intercepts, emails  - other documentation of the meetings, e.g. of Carter Page-   point to clear conspiracy with the Russkies to alter  the 2016 election. 

Even more explicit is the take from Mimi Rocah, former federal prosecutor, appearing January 25th last year on 'All In':

"There's just so many facts in this indictment about the coordination of the Trump campaign with Wikileaks, through Roger Stone. Remember that GRU indictment - if you go back to that- one of the objects of the conspiracy is not just hacking but hacking and disseminating.  You can't look at them alone, you have to go back to everything we know, the Trump Tower meeting, the calling out by Trump to Russia (to grab Hillary's emails)...there's just so many other things."

A de facto conspiracy by any other name. Then there are Traitor Trump's own words to hang him,  e.g.

"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."

The very next day the Russkies hacked the DNC - and the traitor 'Pukes have the nerve to try to lay the 2016 election interference on the Ukraine.  Worse, to invoke the Ukraine- Crowdstrike- Burisma nonsense to try to deflect attention and get Trump acquitted.

 Stoehr again:

"It has remained to be seen how far the Republican Party is willing to go in defense of Mr. Trump’s conspiracy. But now, as the impeachment process enters a new and dangerous phase, we are seeing new GOP behavior, though we have witnessed plenty of hints. One reporter wrote recently that Republicans decided the best way to defend the president is to embrace “the claim" of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. Let’s be clear. 

There was no Ukrainian interference. That’s according to the special counsel’s report, which cited one and a half dozen national security agencies. That’s according to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report. That’s according to every career official in the State Department who testified under oath last month.The idea that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked the U.S. originated in the Kremlin."

Indeed, this specious - already debunked narrative -  claiming it was Ukrainians who meddled in the 2016 election instead of the Russians- was  totally refuted by Dr. Fiona Hill in her House Impeachment hearings appearance, e.g.

Fiona Hill Schools Russian-Bought Reepos To Disda...

In her own words, from my Nov. 22nd post:

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”


Further, an intel report released the next day (and issued to the Republicans as well ) noted the Ukraine - CrowdStrike BS was being peddled by Putin and the Russians to frame Ukraine.  But the Reptiles have continued to invoke it because they are traitors first and sowers of  propaganda and lies second.  Fifth columnists who consistently place party and obeisance to Trump,  over country. Recall also Traitor Trump's lies at the time,  issued in a tweet, e.g.

"The F.B.I. went in, and they told them, ‘Get out of here, we’re not giving it to you,’ They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it is called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. I still want to see that server.”

Hell, even Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocey (two of the FOX 'n Friends trio) had their mouths agape. Kilmeade - once he caught his breath - even had the sense to ask the Traitor- in -chief for his sources.  All he could do was bark 50 more minutes of lies. 

Mr. Stoehr again:

"The idea that the Democrats, not Mr. Trump’s campaign staffers, conspired with foreign operatives is more than “conspiracy theory.” It is a fascist ploy to turn lies into truth. This is why I said recently that Mr. Trump’s crime is so much worse than abuse of power. It’s treason. And the Republicans, like lemmings, are heading for a cliff. "

Indeed, these rats are headed over a cliff, and with a huge grenade (the Bolton disclosures) in their sorry paws as well.  Set to blow up just as they vote to acquit Herr Hitler Jr.  And as I noted earlier it was  the Trump team that had  more than 100 meetings with GRU agents. It is the Reepo-Trump alliance who are the traitors and attempting to overthrow the nation's founding principles and Constitution and replace them with a hostile, alien authoritarian fascist stamp.   Once more we learn from Mr. Stoehr:

"It’s quite another thing, however, to know what you’re doing is wrong and do it anyway. The Republicans can’t not know. First, because intelligence officials briefed Senate Republicans, telling them explicitly the Ukraine-attacked-us story is pure Putin disinformation. Second, because Fiona Hill, a former member of the White House National Security Council, and a Russia authority, was clear about what House Republicans were already doing. She said: 

“In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests. I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016.”

 Again, repeating what I wrote earlier in regard to Dr. Hill's House testimony.  And now the coup de grace:

"And now we have another reason why the Republicans can’t not know they are participating in a conspiracy to defraud the American people. Rudy Giuliani, who is not regarded for his discretion, confessed to knowing the Ukraine-attacked-us story was bunk. Not only that, the president’s personal attorney actually said he decided to pursue “evidence” of Ukraine’s attack in order to undercut Robert Mueller’s report.

Is that where the Republicans want to go? Well, yes, if Tucker Carlson is any indication. The Fox News host is on the bleeding edge of attempts by Trump partisans to expand what the American people think is acceptable behavior. On his show recently he said: “I’m totally opposed to these [US] sanctions [on Russia] and I don’t think we should be at war with Russia and I think we should take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.” He went on to say the Democrats hate America more than Vladimir Putin does.   At some point, we must face what it means for Republicans to know the truth but to advance Kremlin lies anyway, even when doing so slowly burns down the republic.

At some point soon, we must stop calling them dupes, and start calling them the enemy."

So by carrying water for the already discredited GRU, Putin and their conspiracy codswallop - like the Senate Reeps plan to do (unless they prove otherwise) -   we can declare  they are indeed the enemy.  Worse, all these misfits who swore to protect and defend the Constitution against "all enemies foreign and domestic"  are de facto traitors. 
   
They are openly using debunked material from a hostile foreign security service to undermine our Republic and indeed to destroy it. Thus, each specious argument made by Trump's lawyers to protect him  - and the Republican party - amounts to one more nail in their treasonous coffins.  The people,  representing the court of final appeal (guided by the Constitution) - will make their final verdict known in November.  Unlike the GOP's cowardly Senators they will oust all these Reepo snakes:  from the presidency, and the Senate.  Giving us a chance to disinfect both from the pestilence that's nearly destroyed them - and our nation.

See also:

Goldberg: Trump’s defenders have adopted a doctrine of infallibility »

And:

John Bolton | Ukraine

If a Bombshell Explodes in the Forest and No One ...

And:

• Trump team warns GOP senators, 'Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike'  

And:

The Editorial Board

Surprise, Mr. President. John Bolton Has the Goods

The Past 10 Days Shows Corporo Media Remains As Clueless As Ever On How To Cover Trump

"Trump spouting off doesn’t qualify as news. But will the press ever acknowledge that before 2020?"-  Eric Boehlert, smirkingchimp.com,

Sad to say the past ten days shows the corporate (mainstream) media is as clueless as it's ever been in its ability to critically cover Trump's shenanigans.  Even the past 48 hours have disclosed demonstrations of absolutely pathetic journalism and reporting. From NBC's Richard Engel altering the words actually used by the Iranian leaders to describe the latest White House tightening of sanctions ("having mental illness" instead of "being afflicted by mental retardation") to ABC's Terry Moron....excuse me, Moran, asking Trump yesterday if he plans to block Robert Mueller from testifying.

In the Engel case, if you're a bona fide reporter, you faithfully report the words actually used by the other side when it "fires back"  (one of the media's favorite phrases) at Trump.  You do not alter them to suit some notion of political correctness or whatever. In the case of ABC's Terry Moran, a serious reporter does not toss a purposeless, inciting,  'softball'  question at a confirmed autocrat.  But that only begins to scratch the surface. 


 As media watchdog Eric Boelhert recently observed on the events since Trump's Orlando 2020 rollout (smirkingchimp.com):

"Touting Donald Trump as a "rock star," and genuflecting at the altar of his "greatest show yet," the media showered the president with unnecessary attention all last week in honor of his re-election rally kickoff in Orlando, Florida. The coverage, which was so reminiscent of 2016, raises fresh concerns about whether the news media learned anything from previous campaign about covering a whiny bully like Trump. Will journalists still view him through the lens of celebrity and hold him to almost no substantive standards, while echoing his lies and bogus attacks on Democrats? Coming off monumental failures in 2016, the press seems poised to stumble through another campaign to failure. Especially since, following the 2016 debacle, most in the press refused to concede that mistakes had been made, let alone offer up much serious self-reflection.

It's likely the White House loved how rally week played out, with an avalanche of coverage that mostly just regurgitated Trump's stale, familiar rally speech, which leans heavily on victimhood. One of the media themes regarding Trump's event was that, with his endless attacks on Hillary Clinton, he's stuck in the past. But the same point can be made about the press, which seems determined to hit rewind for 2020. And that means a return of the circus-like, spectacle-type campaign coverage Trump loves."


The preceding pretty well sums up the media's passive compliance and  incompetence in the face of a confirmed sociopath, con man and derelict buffoon they still treat as a legit, qualified leader instead of the abominable criminal he is.  And this is damned important. Because if he's given the deference due to a real, worthy chief executive instead of a wary eye and criticism, he will act the part of an unchained loon - as he has with the migrant kids locked up in abominable detention centers, or performing like a rabid ape at his recent Orlando launch rally.

My beef?  The press and media basically treats him way too seriously.   Joy Reed nailed it in her Tuesday night segment on All In, calling out the New York media especially for its kid gloves approach to Trump.  The reason? They've "known him for decades" and love covering him for the "entertainment value".  What Eric Boelhert called "viewing him through the lens of celebrity". But see, this is no longer entertainment. This is about the survival of our democracy  and not allowing it to descend into a Trumpian autocracy.(Nicole Wallace aptly says we're in a "national emergency".) Some of us can indeed see that, but too many are blind, bored or uninterested.  Especially too many in the media.

Why is it even ordinary citizens are finally seeing through this miscreant's actions and behavior but so many in the fourth estate can't?  As expressed by one letter writer to the Denver Post yesterday (p. 15A):

"Trump has marginalized just about every race, sexual preference and religion.  He's called the media the enemy.  He's ruined relations with our allies while adoring our enemies. Where's the line? What's it going to take for people (e.g. media) to condemn Trump?"

But here's the rub.  The "people" (media, the press) who should be condemning his vile behavior, or at least checking him when he grants them interviews, aren't. Twice last night I watched network TV news reporters asking Trump about the disgusting conditions at the border with migrant kids wearing clothes saturated in their own snot, urine and vomit, and only a concrete floor to sleep on.  In each case, Dotard immediately launched into his diatribe of lies, "Obama set up those cages!" and the reporters sat there deaf, dumb, stupid and stupefied. No comeback, no check, no challenge.  

That wasn't all.

Sunday I watched slack -jawed as the CBS media lapdog Margaret Brennan interviewed Bernie Sanders on 'Face The Nation' and challenged him on his opposition to Trump's Iran response.  Here's the main blow by blow from the interview which encapsulates all that's wrong with today's media and why Walter Cronkite would be gagging at Brennan's performance.

Brennan began by asking:  “Was President Trump’s decision this week to call off that strike the right one?” .

With a derisive chuckle, Bernie replied,

 “See, it’s like somebody setting a fire to a basket full of paper and then putting it out. He helped create the crisis and then he stopped the attacks.”

Sanders was referring to something evidently not even on Brennan's radar, that Dotard had torn up the original Iran nuclear agreement that had been working. Iran had not been processing any nuclear materials. But since it was an accomplishment of Obama, Trump had to destroy it, degenerate egomaniac that he is.

He went on noting that Trump  thinks that a war with Iran is something that might be good for this country.  Brennan interjected, idiotically and uncritically blabbing:

"He was just doing a limited strike,” .

Bernie then properly hammered this semi-qualified, media lite bimbo, his voice dripping with sarcasm:

“Oh, just a limited strike, well, I’m sorry. I just didn’t know that it’s okay to simply attack another country with bombs, just a limited strike — that’s an act of warfare.”

Indeed, and Sanders rightly let it be known by his response that a "limited" strike might not be taken as such by an already besieged nation that felt the only recourse was to hit back with full force - missiles aimed at Israel and Saudi Arabia and thousands of strikes against shipping, planes as well as strategic sites.   And this country of 80 million would not roll over like Iraq.

 Sanders basically showed Brennan how to do her job as opposed to acting as a PR pawn for the Trumpies. Not that Brennan was paying any attention, any more than Chuck Todd while providing Trump a grand stage to  bloviate on 'Meet The Press', all the time holding the imp to no substantive standards - again viewing the mutt through the lens of celebrity.  Only occasionally trying to press him, but then allowing Dotard to gain the upper hand.

After lambasting the media's coverage of the campaign rally in Orlando,  Boehlert neatly summarized how the media, namely ABC,  were the willing handmaidens to Trump's ego in a shameless hour of broadcasting his lies:

"Trump talking = news is a ridiculous formula for newsrooms to be using in 2019. Yet last week, we saw ABC News adopt that premise, when the network aired an hourlong prime-time special of, well, Trump talking. There was absolutely no news hook for the unusual programming event, which featured ABC's George Stephanopoulos shadowing Trump over the course of two days last week and recorded Trump lying relentlessly. Not surprisingly, the somnolent show was a ratings flop.  Still, the press seems committed to the idea that every Trump utterance is wildly important and newsworthy"

WHY?   Would the press confer such gravitas on a deranged ape?  I think not.  What the media need to be doing is pulling the plug on the Trump show not amping it up.  The WSJ's Walter Mead two days ago nailed Trump's shtick (p. A15):

"Trump has shrewdly deployed the power of fame. He has turned American politics into the Donald Trump show, with the country and the world fixated on his every move, speculating feverishly about what will come next. Whether threatening on Twitter to rain down destruction from the sky, reining the dogs of war at the last minute or stage managing high stakes summit meetings. He is producing episodes of the most compelling reality show the world has ever known".

And doesn't need or want!  I mean, do I really need to state the obvious that this is unnatural? That a real leader ought to be quietly working for his country in the background and not be seen or heard at every turn?  If Trump is unable to rein himself in to at least feign sanity, then it is up to the media to censor his nonstop "reality show"  mindfuck barrage,  to spare the sanity of the rest of us.  Interestingly, this would also go hand in hand with doing its job.

Boehlert again:

"And yes, the rally coverage featured the hallmark media whitewashing that so often protects Trump supporters from the harsh glare of reality. Trump was met in Orlando by "cheering and chanting supporters," reported USA Today, and by "thousands of adoring supporters," according to Politico. Both of those cheerful descriptions remind me of the bland, innocuous ways his supporters were often described in 2016. What has traditionally been missing from the nonstop deluge of Trump voter stories? A look into the dark nature of Trump Nation, and an open acknowledgment that his base is often fueled by racism. Trump's candidacy was driven by immigrant-bashing, and so too has his presidency been. But when journalists profile his faithful supporters, acknowledgment of Trump's racist rhetoric rarely comes up. The problem with that type of whitewashing is that the Orlando rally attracted throngs of proud white nationalists, who clearly have become part of the Trump's political coalition, and whose presence was not mentioned in most press reports. And really, just the whole fascist vibe of the rallies is badly underplayed by the press."


That last sentence about white washing gets to the core of the problem - the media's selective emphasis on Trump's braggadocio while downplaying the clear fascist  undertones. Oh, and failing to call out the hundreds of execrable lies each time he opens his mouth..  But alas, some Trump lubbers - like the WSJ's Holman Jenkins ( 'Trump's Finest Hour',  yesterday, p. A15)- drool over his shameless prevarication:

"He is good at bringing Trumpian impulses and instincts into every situation, including in deciding which untruths to wrap himself in."

Seriously? Trumpian impulses and deciding which untruths to wrap himself in?  Then we are appalled at the possibility Americans are becoming desensitized to Trump's lies and performances. 'Desensitized' meaning inured to them to the point of shrugging shoulders and saying 'So what? At least he didn't shoot anyone in the middle of Fifth avenue.'

Eric Alterman, writing in a piece ('Lord of the Lies') appearing in a recent issue of The Nation (June 5-10, p. 10) notes, for example:

"Daniel Dale of The Toronto Star, who tracks Trump's deceptions, says that most journalists rarely bother to mention that Trump's statements are filled with falsehoods. 'If you watched a network news segment, read an Associated Press article, or glanced at the front page of the city that hosted him, you'd typically have no idea that he was wholly inaccurate'.  Most coverage, Dale points out, reads something like 'Trump speaks to big, excited crowd, insults X and Y, talks policy Z'"

Which is a sorry, cartoonish template that - if Walter Cronkite were alive today - he'd laugh at. He'd wonder what school of journalism the perpetrators had attended - if they did at all.  Incredibly too, Trump often lies about the lies and the media almost never really hone in on it.  Well a few did when Trump blurted out in a tweet several days ago: "I had nothing to do with Russia helping to get me elected!"  Huh?  The detestable toad then denied it, insisting to the yapping press corps that he never said any such thing. A Freudian slip then?

Alterman near the end of his piece writes "thankfully most Americans don't believe Trump" - citing fewer than 3 in 10 according to a WaPO Fact Checker. However he also writes:

"What worries me, however, is that people don't realize how much more dishonest Trump is than any of his predecessors. Only about 50 percent of Americans think he is 'less honest' than any previous president".

Which thereby conflates most presidents as liars in some form and worse, fails to hurl Trump into the depths to which he belongs.  Much of this again, is because of the media and mainstream press which often repeats his idiotic tweets without criticizing them properly - merely assuming (as in the case of the Pelosi fake video) most Americans have the intelligence and sense to separate what's factual from rubbish. Well, they don't!

How to respond?  In particular how should the media treat them: as official communications with all the gravitas of a presidential official statement or announcement - through the orthodox, standard channels? Or as disruptive refuse no better than environmental toxic waste?

Some (e.g. Journalism prof Indira Lakshmanan)  have proposed repeating the tweets, but then doing a fact check. The problem with that is twofold: first, most people will have already seen the tweets say on the morning or evening news. Doing a follow-up fact check will then be too late and of minimal impact. Thus, Trumpers' erroneous beliefs and fables are merely reinforced in a kind of confirmation bias. (As manifested in a recent Justin Amash town hall, with one of  his conservo constituents, see e.g. the lead off link below.)

Second, the very act of repeating the offending tweet has the effect of dignifying it - even if unintentionally.  (The same, obviously, applied to the treatment of the Pelosi fake video).  All of which speaks to the media, national press' problem of how to cover Trump. A problem that - from where I stand - still hasn't been solved.   I fear we are going to see a replay of the "celebrity" treatment seen in 2016, as opposed to relentless and hard hitting critical coverage.  Making Trump prove all his assorted outlandish statements in interviews, at rallies etc., not just blindly accepting them because. "he's the president". 


The WSJ's William Galston at least sounded an optimistic note when he wrote ('Trump's Polling Proves Character Counts', yesterday, p. A15), noting how even polls of Republican voters show disapproval of his behavior (e.g. 41 % are "exhausted",  53% are "embarrassed"). Writing based on this:

"If my hypothesis is correct, then Mr. Trump's conduct and character will be a central issue in the 2020 general election".

Maybe, IF the media does its job and stops treating him like he's a celebrity, and instead holds him to account as an unqualified buffoon who snuck into power using the Electoral College.


See also:

Donald Trump | Media

Why Do You Lie So Much? and Eight Other Questions NBC's Chuck Todd Should Have Asked Trump

Excerpt:

"With his interview of Donald Trump, Chuck Todd threw the country under the bus. He gave the president a prime-time platform to peddle his sociopathic lies, with little pushback. He gave legitimacy to those lies and the liar who tells them.


It is almost impossible to overstate the damage Todd’s boot-licking performance has does to civic discourse, public trust, cultural norms, respect for journalism, and even constitutional government. For, now, where is the bottom? What is the institution in our society that people can trust to ferret out truth from lies, sociopathy from civility? "


And:

https://splinternews.com/go-off-bernie-1835800763

Excerpt::

"The bar has gotten so low for the Trump administration these days that there’s a temptation to praise the president every time he makes a decision that, accidentally, if you squint and tilt your head a little, looks like a good idea. Take last week, for instance, when Trump called off a last-minute retaliatory strike on Iranian regime targets in response to the loss of an unmanned surveillance drone.  The press, a lot of the time, goes along with this. Here’s CBS’s Margaret Brennan, framing the question in a predictably dumb way when interviewing Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday’s Face the Nation. ...Lean in, Bernie. You’re an utterly mirthless old man confronted by a perfect encapsulation of the hypocrisy of both your potential opponent and how the press covers him. "