Putin's Pup

When a story like this breaks:

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.

The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.

Islamist militants, or armed criminal elements closely associated with them, are believed to have collected some bounty money, the officials said. Twenty Americans were killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2019, but it was not clear which killings were under suspicion.

what else is there to conclude but that, having known about it since March, and having in the meanwhile spoken, presumably quite amiably, with President Putin, having suggested Putin be invited to the G7 summit, other than, among the options considered for dealing with this piece of intelligence, Trump most strongly considered "hoping it never came out" and doing--nothing? After all, wouldn't being pressured to confront Putin during an election year be ever so inconvenient, what with all Trump and Putin have meant to one another?

Just recently, in an interview with CBN, Trump accused former president Obama with treason, without elaborating on what he meant by that. (Although I tend to think it focusses on his wild notion that Obama had Comey "tapp" his phones before the election.) If one were to suggest Trump committed treason, I assure you some people would have to ask "Which time?" Collusion during the election with foreign efforts to destabilize election security (about which more information has recently come to light)? His open support for Putin's denial of that effort in Helsinki, the denial of an act which could be considered an act of cyber warfare, over the honest assessment of the US intelligence community? His interference with aid to Ukraine in a way which would both aid Russia and influence the 2020 election? Or this most recent passive position, this time in the face of Russian efforts to harm our military in an actual war?

Nailing It

Biden on Trump: "Amazingly, he still hasn't grasped the most basic fact of this crisis: to fix the economy we have to get control over the virus. He's like a child who can't believe this has happened to him. All his whining & self-pity ... his job is to do something about it." pic.twitter.com/MbGiTa6o7U

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 25, 2020

From yesterday. Biden has gotten criticism (and I don't think it's entirely good faith criticism) for not putting himself out there more. But his campaign has a tremendous gift: Trump. There is one thing that Trump has used to terrible effect, and that is dominating a news cycle and calling attention to himself. But here we are in 2020: Trump can't do the job, because we are in real time watching him, not being able to do the job. And whining about it. And making excuses for it. And blaming other people for it.

We need an adult. That's where Biden comes in.

How Now, "Mad at Cow"?

One of Trump's especially dumb toadies, Rep. Devin Nunes, had the extraordinary stupidity to file a suit against parody accounts purporting to be his cow and his mom, and for some reason, he also sued Liz Mair, because they said mean things about him. The parody accounts, as a result of the attention from the lawsuit, did not in fact die, but became more powerful (followed) than Nunes anticipated (see "Streisand effect"). It was recently determined that there was no real way to find out who Devin Nunes' cow actually was, and a recent ruling decided that Twitter was not to be held liable for what randos post there.

This isn't exactly a case of Nunes suing an internet cow and losing. It's more like, because he's a weird conservative conspiracy theorist, he thinks being criticized on the internet is some kind of ploy against him. But no, it's just...speech. Which, like a dumb fuck, he has called attention to in such a way that statements like "Devin Nunes is suing an internet cow" and "Devin Nunes is losing to an internet cow" can be made.

But the grotesque little point to his exercise is twofold: to purport that social media habitats are biased against conservatives because, I guess, accounts critical of them exist? And to try to shift bias rightward.

I have been following the foofaraw about Section 230 for a minute, and have some feelings.  I have existed as a semi-anonymous pseudonymous personage online for over 20 years, at this point, for a dozen on this blog. I think anonymity for non-public figures helps enable free speech without individual penalty and the toll to an internet persona should be reputational for that persona. Providing critical content, even derogatory content, shouldn't be censored so long as it isn't a threat of actual material harm (beyond hurt feelings or whatever). If you are stalking, making terroristic threats, are a straight-up criminal--okay--that's different. But just saying mean stuff? Give me a break!

Conservatives have been alleging "liberal media bias" for as long as I can remember, so claiming social media bias isn't a big shocker. But knowing how the internet or social media works, it means they are kind of pointing out that they aren't actually that popular and are getting a lot of push-back, and when they explain they are going to flounce off to Gab or Parler or whatever, it's kind of like "Welp, let's fuck off to wherever they banished the neo-Nazis to." Because  the thing where people get kicked off of social media? It's not for bias, it's usually for being a damaged tool that that can't even play well with others.

So anyway, am I saying Devin Nunes is definitely a damaged tool? Well, I'm not not saying that! But his district should seriously consider whether a person with a lot of time on his hands to fuck around about internet cows has any bandwidth left for his constituents.

He Doesn't Kid, He Said

The Trump admin. plans to end federal funding and support for coronavirus testing sites at the end of this month, @NBCNews has learned. pic.twitter.com/6JPPHra2Xk

— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) June 24, 2020

Well, if we ever wanted a clue to the question: stupid or psychopath, "psychopath" just got a very serious assist, but, if this wasn't disturbing enough, other folks are going along with it, so? What does that even say?

It is willful negligence of a public health threat and a crime against humanity.


UPDATE: Read this--100% co-sign. He is a killer. And I think to myself what Trump said about killers. This country is not so innocent, he said. He does not care what happens to us. People die all the time.

Is Trump Truly This Stupid? Or is He a Psychopath?

Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any other country, and ever expanding. With smaller testing we would show fewer cases!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020

So, let's say I'm a little paranoid about radon, so I test my house for radon, but I don't have any. No matter how often I test, we're not finding it. More tests wouldn't change that. You find radon if it's there. We're finding more cases because the cases are there. The only reason I can think of for his continuing to repeat something this dumb is...he really did slow down the testing because it made him look bad and is now trying to justify it by saying it was actually a good thing.

He doesn't take any responsibility. It seems like it's because he doesn't see the actual fact of the number of cases and deaths as the problem, so much as the perception they create.

I guess it is conceivable that some people are that stupid though. I mean, let's say I didn't have WMD's in my house, but my neighbors kept looking for them...

UPDATE: Oh. Shit.

Just now I asked the President if he was kidding when he said he told his people to slow down testing, which is how White House officials explained the comment.

He said, “I don’t kid.”

He also said again testing is a double-edged sword, and praised the job the U.S. has done.

— Weijia Jiang (@weijia) June 23, 2020

Matt Schlapp Misses the Point

I'm screen-capping the Twitter post for this one on the off-chance that Schlapp will understand where he went wrong here, but the picture of his post above reads: "Statues of Jesus are next. It won't end. Pray for the USA." This is apparently in response to the recent protests having resulted in the toppling and removal of statues honoring Confederate figures, slaveowners, and other figures that honor persons or events representing racism and colonialism.  It's three short sentences, but it packs in a lot of how conservatives can get the thrust of what's happening quite wrong.

The roots of abolition, both of slavery and of the injustice system, are long, and intricately tied with religion, with people who passionately believed that "whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me." I don't know if Schlapp's education somehow missed that the Great Awakening in the US encouraged abolitionism, and that evangelicals, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics and Quakers were moved to speak against slavery, just as many of their descendants today speak out about social justice.  After all:

a man who preached about loving one's neighbor as oneself, was apprehended for his activism, scourged, and then hung from a wooden beam by the state authorities, is not the image of the transgressor. Jesus of Nazareth was railroaded. Jesus of Nazareth was abused by Rome's cops. Jesus died because Pilate washed his hands of the whole thing when, maybe, he could have stood up to a multitude wanting to do evil. 

But the point is, the mob Schlapp is concerned about isn't the "godless (probably Commies)" he seems to think they are. Sure, there's a weird current of thought amongst the far right, your Birchers and them, that the civil rights movement is dictated from the Kremlin and that Black people don't have the agency to be quite deservedly pissed at the treatment they have experienced. The civil rights movement of the 20th century was anything but godless. But the idea that there's a slippery slope from "Fuck General Lee" to "Fuck Jesus Christ and the ass and her foal he rode in on" is without any reason. For what it's worth, if you think an actual feeling human being needs, for example, to be paid by Soros or whoever, to be stricken with horror at the idea of a human being, lying on the ground and without defense, with the very breath he needs to live denied him by a knee--a knee! of a person wearing the uniform of a civil servant for nine damn minutes, then fuck you and your civilly anesthetized ass. 

But for another thing, if I had it in my heart to pray, and held the philosopher from Galilee in my mind, I'd pray we answer the fucking question: are all men and women created equal here, or what? Wasn't that what our US of A Founding Fathers were trying to say, even if they weren't about to really put their slave-holding money where their mouths were when they wrote the Declaration of Independence?  Do we value the life of a Breonna Taylor, of George Floyd, of Tamir Rice, of Walter Scott, of Sean Bell, of Sandra Bland, of Tony McDade, of Ahmaud Arbery, and so on, more than we do the fictions that let us keep thinking this country was built with clean hands?  And doesn't letting it go on leave us all in the position of Pilate--washing our hands of what we could have done, but had not the will to do? 

I'm not a Christian, but if Schlapp believes that statues of Jesus would topple, who does he think that image is for? Because I know very well who the statues of Confederate generals are for, and I don't care if they fall one little bit. 

Jesus should be safe in this movement. Schlapp's preconceptions are not. And is that not a reason to pray and tremble? (Nah, I think he'll stick with his mouthful of pitch that defiles. He is accustomed to the taste.)

The Little Rally that Couldn't

Joy: Everyone is shocked.. This was an easy setup for Brad Parscale... They completely messed it up. Brad Parscale is now furiously trying to tweet excuses... There’s a lot of twitter traffic that says he was played by young people and K-pop fans who ordered tickets... pic.twitter.com/nFeA93LTX9

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) June 21, 2020

The weird thing is, the scheme to reserve tickets was known days ahead of the rally, but the Trump campaign was still bragging about how many tickets were being reserved, as if they genuinely expected a really large crowd, anyway. Then, instead of either acknowledging what we all know, they could have at least tried chalking it up to fears over COVID-19, instead of what they ultimately went with:

Radical protestors, fueled by a week of apocalyptic media coverage, interfered with @realDonaldTrump supporters at the rally.

They even blocked access to the metal detectors, preventing people from entering.

Thanks to the 1,000s who made it anyway!https://t.co/eM2nohMEy6

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) June 20, 2020

Huh. It was the infamous Antifa ninjas, which is why it was so hard to see them there. Also, I thought Trump was pretty sure the Tulsa police were going to be stopping all of that. (Also, Trump rallies have had protesters before. Much of the hoopla about the dangers of Antifa comes from....well, Trump.)

The reality is, how many people are still excited about Trump's act? He did 15 minutes on how he really can drink water but his arm was all tuckered out from 600 salutes, and man, what a slippery ramp West Point had. Like, he was devoting time to criticism from a whole week ago, that should have been forgotten by now. Did they show up to hear him confess about slowing down COVID-19 testing and calling the disease that has now killed 120K Americans the "Kung flu" (so these things could be walked back by the White House as "jokes")?

It was suggested by some that Trump had this rally not so much for the sake of campaigning (in a state he won handily in 2016) but for the sake of his ego. I'm not sure it did anything for either his campaign or his morale.

TWGB: Friday Night Foolishness

Comparisons to the original "Saturday Night Massacre" for anything happening in TrumpWorld already seem super-cheesy and done-to-death. I mean, what about Sally Yates, or Jim Comey, or maybe Andrew McCabe? Peter Strzok? Jeff Sessions? (And it sure looked like the end of the Mueller Report and Mueller's own exeunt was stage-directed). All of these IG's, lately? Basically, the one thing we can count on for sure about the Trump Administration is that it's always Celebrity Apprentice decision time, and if you are doing some law enforcing (or even allowing some law enforcement or maybe thinking about it) that is inconvenient to Trump--you're fired!

So the curious case of the resigned US Attorney who did not agree to resign, Geoffrey Berman, isn't some great irregularity in the Trump system, or shouldn't seem like much more than another flashing light amongst the Las Vegas strip of flashing lights. US Attorneys are sometimes removed, is all. Except--

Yeah, well but it's the SDNY. Could there be an attempt here to interfere with an investigation to do with Deutsche Bank? HalkBank? Jeffrey Epstein? The Giuliani investigation? The mind friggin' boggles.

And here I was thinking the most TrumpWorld Grab-Bag thing today would end up being a release of a less-redacted bit of the Mueller report that kind of does hint at a bit more collusion than we were told. Folks--there is always something more in the Grab-bag. The Trump Universe is a cornucopia of crime. It's all just a grift with some government stuff attached. Trump views his biggest fans as the biggest marks.

This is why he doesn't care what happens to them at his pick-me-up rally. Marks aren't people--they're lunch.

I think this gives Congress a lovely opportunity to get AG Bill Barr to answer some really probing questions, though. As he is not Trump's personal lawyer, I do wonder what he would say if someone actually held his feet to the fire since he really should be working for the people of the US? Ha, hah but no, really his entire ass should be impeached.

Dare to Dream

In another pleasant shock this week, SCOTUS rejected the Trump Administration's attempt to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, basically stating that Team Trump went about it all wrong.  Note: they didn't say that Trump and friends couldn't kill the program, and they certainly could decide to try it again. 

The Roberts' decision was that the decision to end DACA was "arbitrary and capricious", and Justice Sotomayor noted that there was a strong likelihood of negative bias against DACA recipients in that decision as well. It's about the process of ending the program, not the constitutionality of the program itself (which also has a strong basis, but we can leave that point for the moment) that was in question.

So where does Trump go from here? Heck if I know--but if Trump wants to go back to the drawing board and end DACA, the rationale will have to sound quite different than "because my base really, really wants me to deport kids and that's important to my getting re-elected", which, to be super honest, is how I think it could be depicted.  In the meanwhile, there is broad support for creating a legal status for Dreamers outside of Trump die-hards. (Not that Trump seems to be aware that people outside of his base exist most of the time.)

In the meantime, this is a relief for now for several hundred thousand young people who can live their lives without fear a little longer. But for those of us looking at a decision of our own in November, let's keep their situation in mind, because the current Senate is highly unlikely to take up legislation to give them a more permanent sense of relief.