"As Good As It Gets" - What A Difference 11 Months Makes

Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic,

What a difference eleven months make.

Shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated he fired Michael Flynn.

What’s become the conventional subtext is that the intelligence agencies have launched a “soft coup” against Trump, he has been significantly weakened, and the Deep State has scored a major victory.

“Plot Holes,” SLL, 2/26/17

Rejecting that subtext, SLL developed in “Plot Holes” and later articles a series of interrelated hypotheses. We posited that Trump was smarter and the Deep State weaker and more incompetent than generally reckoned. Also, that the Deep State’s animus towards Trump was based chiefly on fear of exposure and prosecution for its long history of corruption and criminality, not policy differences, notably concerning Russia. Finally, we suggested Trump is chiefly motivated by a drive for power. These hypotheses yielded testable predictions.

As predicted, the Russiagate investigation, based as it is on nothing, is now recognized as a monumental blunder. It forced the Deep State into the open and revealed its prosecutorial forbearance towards Hillary Clinton, its effort to help her and hinder Trump during the election, and its attempt to depose Trump afterwards. The FBI has been exposed as the antithesis of a concept implied by the word investigation: impartiality. Holdovers from the Obama Justice Department have been compromised.

The tables are turned. As the Russiagate investigation fades, Trump is left with investigatory gold mines: Uranium One, Fusion GPS, FBI and Department of Justice political meddling and obstruction of justice, Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the Clinton foundation. Trump could fire Robert Mueller with only a minor political uproar, but Mueller’s making a fool of himself to Trump’s political benefit. Why stop him?

As for those gold mines, Trump will decide if the threat of an investigation or an actual investigation best satisfies his leverage and power calculations and proceed accordingly. There has been no general swamp draining, nor will there be. Trump uses investigatory threats as a Machiavellian tactic to extract what he wants from compromised political actors in useful positions. The Clintons and James Comey, no longer in power and thus, no longer useful, are the most likely to be investigated and prosecuted.

In foreign policy, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel emphasizes Trump’s pronounced tilt toward Israel. Acquiescing to Saudi Arabia’s hapless war against Yemen and Mohammed Bin Salman’s recent purge confirms his support of that regime. In return, Israel and Saudi Arabia have sat still for Trump’s discontinuance of the US policy of supporting Islamic extremists to further regime changes (see “Powerball, Part Two”). This has meant accepting a de facto victory for the Russian-Shia alliance in Syria. US support for the Middle East’s Sunni bloc and Israel as Russian backs the Shiite bloc may lead to a standoff that brings a reduction in violence in that troubled region. It has already begun to reduce refugee flows from the area to Europe.

This is not to say that Trump’s rhetorical broadsides against Iran will stop, but the claims that the US is on the verge of war are overblown. Such a conflict would lead to a Middle East conflagration and the third officially recognized world war.

Trump’s blasts against North Korea are more problematic. His task there is more difficult than Iran; North Korea has nuclear weaponry purportedly able to strike most of the US. Trump has two options: a military strike designed to wipe out North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and Kim Jong-un’s regime, or negotiations that ratify the status quo, with Russia and China applying continuing pressure to enforce Kim’s compliance. At this point Trump may not know what he’s going to do, other than more verbal shots at North Korea and continuing displays of military strength in the region.

Trump has started no new wars. His administration has rolled back some regulations and he just won a legislative victory on tax reform. That may give him enough of a headwind to readdress Obamacare, which has neither been repealed nor replaced. He has his enemies on their back feet. Only fringe elements are still talking about impeachment. The government’s statistics indicate growth is running at above 3 percent, better than trend Obama growth, and the stock indexes keep making new records.

In 2017 SLL made contrarian, optimistic predictions for the president and pessimistic predictions for the economy and stock market (see “Hard Core Doom Porn”) We’ve been more right on the former than the latter…so far. For 2018, we’re with the minority who see clouds and thunderstorms, not silver linings. This is about as good as it gets for Trump.

Deft—by this analysis—as Trump has been, his biggest challenge lies ahead. The government is bankrupt, and demographics will push it ever-deeper in the hole. The global economy is struggling under monstrous and unsupportable debt. Fiat money something-for-nothing has a sell-by date, sooner or later the stock market and economy will head south. Historically, there’s been a tight correlation between stocks, the economy, and presidential popularity.

“Is Trump Winning?” SLL, 8/6/17

Debt has been Trump’s siren song his entire career, and more than once he’s crashed on the rocks. Big triumphs have been followed by big disasters, hubris undoubtedly playing a role.

Stock market and cryptocurrency pyrotechnics have obscured an incipient bear trend in a much more important market, bonds, which in the US apparently topped out in July 2016. Falling bond prices mean rising interest rates. The world has never been more indebted; a global bear market in bonds would be toxic to equity markets and economies (and perhaps cryptocurrencies). Tellingly, high yield bond prices are diverging from rising stock prices, indicating increasing credit stress. According to David Stockman, tax reform will increase the government’s borrowing to $1.25 trillion in fiscal year 2019. Rising rates would add more to the government’s interest bill, and hit indebted businesses and individuals as well. They would offer relief to savers long abused by the Fed’s interest rate suppression tactics, but savers are a much smaller group than borrowers, and they spend less.

Rising debt and ever-expanding government are in large part responsible for a long-term decline in trend economic growth rates across the developed world. Much of what growth there has been was funded with debt. If you buy $100 dollars worth of good or services on credit you have not increased your income, your personal “gross domestic product.” If the government does the same, it registers as an increase in the gross domestic product. Back out such debt-funded “growth” and it’s unclear if there’s been any growth at all since 2009.

In the US, real incomes have stagnated since the turn of the century. Rising equity markets and falling growth rates mean that corporate valuations are in the stratosphere. Joined with off-the-chart measures of optimism and declining central bank support, equity markets are poised for a fall. That it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. It’s never “different this time.” Given the leverage and speculation embedded in the market, the fall could be breathtaking, a quick drop of 50 percent or more.

As noted, falling stock markets and economies generally take the popularity of incumbent politicians with them. Trump, the most polarizing political figure since Franklin Roosevelt, is not all that popular to begin with. The Deep State that has ruled this country since World War II is down; it would be unwise to count it out. It will certainly capitalize on financial and economic turmoil to launch a counterattack against Trump.

Next year’s silver lining may be that it marks peak government. Governments have coopted much of the world’s resources and put a gigantic lien on its future production. In a severe economic contraction, the wherewithal from taxes and credit markets that would allow them to grow even bigger—and thus more intrusive and repressive—simply won’t be there.

A financial and political focal point will be pension and medical funds. Many such funds are visibly under stress. Widespread insolvency is inevitable, especially if equity and credit markets head south. The resultant fear and fury will be uncontrollable, obliterating today’s widespread, quasi-religious faith in government and its works. The upheaval would make present discord look like a picnic in the park.

It would be unwise to rely on anything but one’s own resources, family, and friends during the coming turmoil. It would be wise to shore up those defenses, and soon.

The Obama-Hezbollah Conspiracy Could Shake The "Deep State" And Latin America

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Politico published an explosive investigative report which alleges that the Obama Administration politically interfered to obstruct a far-reaching criminal justice operation against Hezbollah in order to facilitate the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

The exposé is extensive and covers a wide array of purported activities over a ten-year period all across the US, Latin America, West Africa, Europe, and the Mideast, though the point of this analysis isn’t to summarize what’s contained in the report or to judge its veracity, but to interpret the significance of it being made public at this point in time. The codename given to the investigation into Hezbollah’s global economic network was “Operation Cassandra”, and it alleges to have discovered the mechanics behind the group’s self-sustaining financial ecosystem, some of which supposedly dealt with organized criminal activities such as drug trafficking and money laundering.

Politico’s bombshell wasn’t just the alleged facts that it uncovered, but the claims from some of the operation’s participants that the Obama Administration was undermining their work because it feared that taking action against Hezbollah would endanger Washington’s efforts to clinch the 2015 nuclear deal with the group’s patrons in Tehran. If true, then this would represent a major split within the American “deep state”, or permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies, because it suggests that the State Department and possibly even the CIA were conspiring to subvert the law enforcement duties of the FBI and DEA on behalf of the President.

The implications behind this revelation could be enormous, and at the very least they seem to confirm Republican accusations that the Obama Administration was selling out domestic security interests in order to pursue the risky and now-failed foreign policy gambit of co-opting Iran through a tacit alliance with its ruling “moderate” elites. Seeing as how some of Obama-era “deep state” figures involved in this scandal might still be working with the government, the Trump Administration could use Politico’s report as the pretext for “cleaning house” and removing or professionally neutralizing some of its institutional opponents. It’s speculated that this is what Tillerson has been trying to do for months now, but the latest findings could add a renewed sense of impetus to his efforts.

In addition, apart from the obvious consequences that this revelation could have in further worsening American-Iranian relations and reversing the Obama-era trend towards a rapprochement, there’s another international aspect that needs to be looked at, and that’s the effect that the report will have on the US’ policy towards Latin America.

Politico alleges that “Operation Cassandra” uncovered a diverse criminal network stretching all across the hemisphere, and whether fully true or partially exaggerated, this news could be used to tighten the US’ security arrangements with its regional partners in complementing the theater-wide asymmetrical counteroffensive of “Operation Condor 2.0” that’s been ongoing ever since the 2009 coup against leftist Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

Relatedly, the allegations of Venezuelan government complicity in Hezbollah’s trans-hemispheric conspiracy could form the basis for new sanctions against the Bolivarian Republic.

All told, this developing scandal might take a while to fully unfold, but it can still be expected to influence the course of the “deep state’s” War on Trump and the US’ policy towards Latin America to one extent or another by the time that it’s all said and done with.

Traub: "The US Has Reached The Last Stage Before Collapse"

Authored by James Traub via Foreign Policy,

The United States of America Is Decadent and Depraved

The problem isn’t Donald Trump – it’s the Donald Trump in all of us...

In The History of the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon luridly evokes the Rome of 408 A.D., when the armies of the Goths prepared to descend upon the city. The marks of imperial decadence appeared not only in grotesque displays of public opulence and waste, but also in the collapse of faith in reason and science. The people of Rome, Gibbon writes, fell prey to “a puerile superstition” promoted by astrologers and to soothsayers who claimed “to read in the entrails of victims the signs of future greatness and prosperity.”

Would a latter-day Gibbon describe today’s America as “decadent”? I recently heard a prominent, and pro-American, French thinker (who was speaking off the record) say just that. He was moved to use the word after watching endless news accounts of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tweets alternate with endless revelations of sexual harassment. I flinched, perhaps because a Frenchman accusing Americans of decadence seems contrary to the order of nature. And the reaction to Harvey Weinstein et al. is scarcely a sign of hysterical puritanism, as I suppose he was implying.

And yet, the shoe fit. The sensation of creeping rot evoked by that word seems terribly apt.

Perhaps in a democracy the distinctive feature of decadence is not debauchery but terminal self-absorption - the loss of the capacity for collective action, the belief in common purpose, even the acceptance of a common form of reasoning. We listen to necromancers who prophesy great things while they lead us into disaster. We sneer at the idea of a “public” and hold our fellow citizens in contempt. We think anyone who doesn’t pursue self-interest is a fool.

We cannot blame everything on Donald Trump, much though we might want to. In the decadent stage of the Roman Empire, or of Louis XVI’s France, or the dying days of the Habsburg Empire so brilliantly captured in Robert Musil’s The Man Without Qualities, decadence seeped downward from the rulers to the ruled. But in a democracy, the process operates reciprocally. A decadent elite licenses degraded behavior, and a debased public chooses its worst leaders. Then our Nero panders to our worst attributes — and we reward him for doing so.

“Decadence,” in short, describes a cultural, moral, and spiritual disorder — the Donald Trump in us. It is the right, of course, that first introduced the language of civilizational decay to American political discourse. A quarter of a century ago, Patrick Buchanan bellowed at the Republican National Convention that the two parties were fighting “a religious war … for the soul of America.” Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) accused the Democrats of practicing “multicultural nihilistic hedonism,” of despising the values of ordinary Americans, of corruption, and of illegitimacy. That all-accusing voice became the voice of the Republican Party. Today it is not the nihilistic hedonism of imperial Rome that threatens American civilization but the furies unleashed by Gingrich and his kin.

The 2016 Republican primary was a bidding war in which the relatively calm voices — Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio — dropped out in the early rounds, while the consummately nasty Ted Cruz duked it out with the consummately cynical Donald Trump. A year’s worth of Trump’s cynicism, selfishness, and rage has only stoked the appetite of his supporters. The nation dodged a bullet last week when a colossal effort pushed Democratic nominee Doug Jones over the top in Alabama’s Senate special election. Nevertheless, the church-going folk of Alabama were perfectly prepared to choose a racist and a pedophile over a Democrat. Republican nominee Roy Moore almost became a senator by orchestrating a hatred of the other that was practically dehumanizing.

Trump functions as the impudent id of this culture of mass contempt.

Of course he has legitimized the language of xenophobia and racial hatred, but he has also legitimized the language of selfishness. During the campaign, Trump barely even made the effort that Mitt Romney did in 2012 to explain his money-making career in terms of public good. He boasted about the gimmicks he had deployed to avoid paying taxes. Yes, he had piled up debt and walked away from the wreckage he had made in Atlantic City. But it was a great deal for him! At the Democratic convention, then-Vice President Joe Biden recalled that the most terrifying words he heard growing up were, “You’re fired.” Biden may have thought he had struck a crushing blow. Then Americans elected the man who had uttered those words with demonic glee. Voters saw cruelty and naked self-aggrandizement as signs of steely determination.

Perhaps we can measure democratic decadence by the diminishing relevance of the word “we.” It is, after all, a premise of democratic politics that, while majorities choose, they do so in the name of collective good. Half a century ago, at the height of the civil rights era and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, democratic majorities even agreed to spend large sums not on themselves but on excluded minorities. The commitment sounds almost chivalric today. Do any of our leaders have the temerity even to suggest that a tax policy that might hurt one class — at least, one politically potent class — nevertheless benefits the nation?

There is, in fact, no purer example of the politics of decadence than the tax legislation that the president will soon sign. Of course the law favors the rich; Republican supply-side doctrine argues that tax cuts to the investor class promote economic growth. What distinguishes the current round of cuts from those of either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush is, first, the way in which they blatantly benefit the president himself through the abolition of the alternative minimum tax and the special treatment of real estate income under new “pass-through” rules. We Americans are so numb by now that we hardly even take note of the mockery this implies of the public servant’s dedication to public good.

Second, and no less extraordinary, is the way the tax cuts have been targeted to help Republican voters and hurt Democrats, above all through the abolition or sharp reduction of the deductibility of state and local taxes. I certainly didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan, but I cannot imagine him using tax policy to reward supporters and punish opponents.

He would have thought that grossly unpatriotic. The new tax cuts constitute the economic equivalent of gerrymandering. All parties play that game, it’s true; yet today’s Republicans have carried electoral gerrymandering to such an extreme as to jeopardize the constitutionally protected principle of “one man, one vote.” Inside much of the party, no stigma attaches to the conscious disenfranchisement of Democratic voters. Democrats are not “us.”

Finally, the tax cut is an exercise in willful blindness. The same no doubt could be said for the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, which predictably led to unprecedented deficits when Republicans as well as Democrats balked at making offsetting budget cuts. Yet at the time a whole band of officials in the White House and the Congress clamored, in some cases desperately, for such reductions. They accepted a realm of objective reality that existed separately from their own wishes. But in 2017, when the Congressional Budget Office and other neutral arbiters concluded that the tax cuts would not begin to pay for themselves, the White House and congressional leaders simply dismissed the forecasts as too gloomy.

Here is something genuinely new about our era: We lack not only a sense of shared citizenry or collective good, but even a shared body of fact or a collective mode of reasoning toward the truth. A thing that we wish to be true is true; if we wish it not to be true, it isn’t. Global warming is a hoax. Barack Obama was born in Africa. Neutral predictions of the effects of tax cuts on the budget must be wrong, because the effects they foresee are bad ones.

It is, of course, our president who finds in smoking entrails the proof of future greatness and prosperity. The reduction of all disagreeable facts and narratives to “fake news” will stand as one of Donald Trump’s most lasting contributions to American culture, far outliving his own tenure. He has, in effect, pressed gerrymandering into the cognitive realm. Your story fights my story; if I can enlist more people on the side of my story, I own the truth. And yet Trump is as much symptom as cause of our national disorder. The Washington Post recently reported that officials at the Center for Disease Control were ordered not to use words like “science-based,” apparently now regarded as disablingly left-leaning. But further reporting in the New York Times appears to show that the order came not from White House flunkies but from officials worried that Congress would reject funding proposals marred by the offensive terms. One of our two national political parties — and its supporters — now regards “science” as a fighting word. Where is our Robert Musil, our pitiless satirist and moralist, when we need him (or her)?

A democratic society becomes decadent when its politics, which is to say its fundamental means of adjudication, becomes morally and intellectually corrupt. But the loss of all regard for common ground is hardly limited to the political right, or for that matter to politics. We need only think of the ever-unfolding narrative of Harvey Weinstein, which has introduced us not only to one monstrous individual but also to a whole world of well-educated, well-paid, highly regarded professionals who made a very comfortable living protecting that monster. “When you quickly settle, there is no need to get into all the facts,” as one of his lawyers delicately advised.

This is, of course, what lawyers do, just as accountants are paid to help companies move their profits into tax-free havens. What is new and distinctive, however, is the lack of apology or embarrassment, the sheer blitheness of the contempt for the public good. When Teddy Roosevelt called the monopolists of his day “malefactors of great wealth,” the epithet stung — and stuck. Now the bankers and brokers and private equity barons who helped drive the nation’s economy into a ditch in 2008 react with outrage when they’re singled out for blame. Being a “wealth creator” means never having to say you’re sorry. Enough voters accept this proposition that Donald Trump paid no political price for unapologetic greed.

The worship of the marketplace, and thus the elevation of selfishness to a public virtue, is a doctrine that we associate with the libertarian right. But it has coursed through the culture as a self-justifying ideology for rich people of all political persuasions — perhaps also for people who merely dream of becoming rich.

Decadence is usually understood as an irreversible condition — the last stage before collapse. The court of Muhammad Shah, last of the Mughals to control the entirety of their empire, lost itself in music and dance while the Persian army rode toward the Red Fort. But as American decadence is distinctive, perhaps America’s fate may be, too. Even if it is written in the stars that China will supplant the United States as the world’s greatest power, other empires, Britain being the most obvious example and the one democracy among them, have surrendered the role of global hegemon without sliding into terminal decadence.

Can the United States emulate the stoic example of the country it once surpassed? I wonder. The British have the gift of ironic realism. When the time came to exit the stage, they shuffled off with a slightly embarrassed shrug. That, of course, is not the American way. When the stage manager beckons us into the wings we look for someone to hit — each other, or immigrants or Muslims or any other kind of not-us. Finding the reality of our situation inadmissible, like the deluded courtiers of the Shah of Iran, we slide into a malignant fantasy.

But precisely because we are a democracy, because the values and the mental habits that define us move upward from the people as well as downward from their leaders, that process need not be inexorable. The prospect of sending Roy Moore to the Senate forced a good many conservative Republicans into what may have been painful acts of self-reflection. The revelations of widespread sexual abuse offer an opportunity for a cleansing moment of self-recognition — at least if we stop short of the hysterical overreaction that seems to govern almost everything in our lives.

Our political elite will continue to gratify our worst impulses so long as we continue to be governed by them. The only way back is to reclaim the common ground — political, moral, and even cognitive — that Donald Trump has lit on fire. Losing to China is hardly the worst thing that could happen to us. Losing ourselves is.

 

Ben Garrison"s 12 Days Of Trumpmas

Authored by Ben Garrison via GrrrrGraphics.com,

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and in the White House
Trump’s words were stirring; Obama felt like a mouse.

A populist president with a broom that swept clean,
Trump accomplished much in 2017.

Yet out past the lawn there arose such a clatter,
Pussy Hatters were yelling along with Black Lives Matter.

The Deep State pushed back—the Swamp became bitter,
They always get triggered when Trump is on Twitter.

Fake News Media compared Trump with Nixon,
“Impeach him!” said Maddow, Mika and Wolf Blitzen.

Rich kneelers were kneeling and sitting on hands,
Stadiums were emptied, they angered their fans.

Rocket Man’s missiles were threatening Seoul,
Kim Jong-Un’s stocking was soon stuffed with coal.

Respect, fame and fortune many women were hoping,
Instead they were molested–the gropers were groping!

Crooked Hillary lied about Trump’s Russian collusion,
The evidence showed it was just an illusion.

The Ass Clowns were angry and showing no poise,
They were loud and obnoxious–empty barrels of noise.

Trump’s eyes twinkled with MAGA delight. He yelled,
“MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT!”

–Merry Christmas from Ben and Tina Garrison

From Camo To "Lucky Charms" - Tucker Carlson"s Hilarious List Of 100 "Racist" Things

Authored by Amber Athey via The Daily Caller,

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson tweeted out Friday a hilarious list of 100 things people have deemed “racist” this year, and some of the entries are just unbelievable.

The Daily Caller founder geared up for the list by telling his followers that “we live in revolutionary times” and that some “wild things” happened in the past year.

We live in revolutionary times. Wild things happened in 2017, and they’ll keep happening next year. In these dangerous political times, it’s important you know what is and is not racist. So, we made a list for you. Let us begin. #100RacistThings

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

Carlson gave each “racist” item its own separate tweet, and while the list is worth reading in its entirety, we’ve compiled some of the best ones for you here.

#1: Trees

A group of trees in Palm Springs, California, was considered racist because the trees separated an upscale golf course from a historically black neighborhood. City officials promised to kill the trees, ridding Palm Springs of a longtime symbol of oppression.

1. Tamarisk trees in Palm Springs, California. https://t.co/a8Tih2Fmen

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#8. Disney movies

Kat George, a writer for Vh1’s website, insisted in 2017 that some of your favorite Disney movies are racist. The Little Mermaid was listed as an offender because Sebastian, Ariel’s crab sidekick, spoke in an exaggerated Jamaican accent.

8. Most of the better Disney movies. https://t.co/3wBcWUKBKm

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#13. Milk

Milk apparently became a symbol of the alt-right and neo-Nazis this year because racial minorities may be more likely to suffer from lactose intolerance. Even worse, the USDA’s dietary guidelines further such oppression by advertising dairy as an essential part of a healthy diet.

13. Milk #100RacistThings https://t.co/PXxbonoDV6

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#18. Science

Students in South Africa declared that science is racist because it cannot explain “black magic” — no, really.

“I have a question for all the science people. There is a place in KZN called Umhlab’uyalingana, and they believe that through the magic, the black magic–you call it black magic, they call it witchcraft–you are able to send lightening to strike someone,” one student explained. “Can you explain that scientifically? Because it’s something that happens.”

18. Science. #100RacistThings https://t.co/NAPLHLBEys

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#29. Military Camouflage

Don’t use face paint while sneaking through the jungle, or you might be accused of racism! The British Army was accused of donning “blackface” after they posted a picture of a soldier wearing dark face paint and holding a rifle.

29. Military camouflage #100RacistThings https://t.co/udTbOg9SSA

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#41. Lucky Charms

A diversity officer at Miami University was actually open to the idea of banning Lucky Charms because some undercover students claimed the cereal was racist against Irish Americans. Yikes.

41. Lucky Charms. #100RacistThings https://t.co/2gypFGGJar

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#49. Expecting people to show up on time

In this case, timeliness is NOT next to godliness. Expecting students to show up on time to class might be insensitive to “cultural differences,” Clemson University said in a diversity training program.

49. Expecting people to show up on time for things. #100RacistThings https://t.co/XUenp7KIWK

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

#64. Babies

Looks like that diversity training might have to start sooner than expected. According to a study by the University of Toronto, babies show preferences to adults of their own race.

64. Babies. #100RacistThings https://t.co/1LIswnHE2s

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 22, 2017

You can follow the full thread on Tucker’s Twitter account HERE.

Trump Signs Tax Overhaul, Stopgap Spending Bills In First Major Legislative Victory

Update: as previewed moments ago, President Trump on Friday morning signed into law legislation funding the government through Jan. 19 and more importantly, the $1.4 trillion Tax Cut and Jobs Act, i.e. the Tax Reform bill, overhauling the U.S. tax code. Trump is now set to depart for Florida.

The bill’s signing ends the president’s first year in office on a high note. As the Hill adds, the president has had some other successes as well, in areas such as rolling back regulations and getting a new Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, confirmed. But Republicans were unable to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and the headlines over the past year have also at times been dominated by the Russia election meddling investigations and palace intrigue stories about disagreements among Trump"s staff.

Trump publicly made efforts to try to get Democrats to vote for the measure as well — particularly senators facing 2018 reelection bids in states the president carried in 2016. But while the president gave speeches on the tax plan in states with vulnerable Democratic senators such as Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana and Pennsylvania, no Democrat in either chamber of Congress ultimately backed the package.

Democrats have focused on the fact that some taxpayers would get tax increases and have argued that the largest benefits will go to wealthy people like the president. They think attacking Republicans on the plan will help them in the midterms since polls show the measure is unpopular with the public.

 

But Republicans are brushing off the polls, arguing that public opinion will change in February when people start to see higher take-home pay. They argue that the bill will be a winner because it will boost job creation, wages and the economy.

The irony will be if the tax bill - slammed by Democrats - actually ends up being popular and succeeds in reducing prevailing tax rates. Such an outcome would result in an even greater lock on Congress by the GOP after the 2018 midterm elections, forcing the Democrats to truly scramble what Russian collusion scandal they will trot out next. 

* * *

After days of speculation over whether Trump would sign his new tax reform bill this year or wait until January to avoid certain spending cuts (something we covered here), Trump has just announced that the tax bill, along with the missile defense bill, will be signed in the Oval Office later today before he heads off to Mar-A-Lago for Christmas. 

"Will be signing the biggest ever Tax Cut and Reform Bill in 30 minutes in Oval Office. Will also be signing a much needed 4 billion dollar missile defense bill."

Will be signing the biggest ever Tax Cut and Reform Bill in 30 minutes in Oval Office. Will also be signing a much needed 4 billion dollar missile defense bill.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2017

Oddly, at least for Trump, the bill signing will be conducted in private rather than as part of a massive media event.

Per senior administration official @POTUS will sign #TaxCut bill before departing WH for Mar-a-Lago this morning. Am advised signing will be private. WH event to celebrate slated for Jan. 3

— Major Garrett (@MajorCBS) December 22, 2017

And just like that, the White House just delivered a $1,000 Christmas bonus to AT&T employees around the country...something that we"re almost certain will result in another Trump tweet at some point today.

Rosie O"Donnell Gets Called Out By Ben Shapiro Over $2 Million Bribe, Tells Him To "Suck My D*ck"

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro filled in for Glenn Beck on Thursday, where he discussed an interesting Twitter exchange he had with long-time Trump enemy Rosie O"Donnell, whose face pretty much always looks like this.

On Tuesday night, O"Donnell attempted to illegally bribe various members of Congress with $2 million if they"d vote against the GOP tax reform bill - tweeting "so about about this i promise to give 2 million dollars to senator susan collins and 2 million to senator jeff flake if they vote NO," adding in mentally ill caps "NO I WILL NOT KILL AMERICANS FOR THE SUOER [sic] RICH... ...DM me susan DM me jeff no sh*t 2 million cash each."

so how about this
i promise to give
2 million dollars to senator susan collins
and 2 million to senator jeff flake

if they vote NO
NO I WILL NOT KILL AMERICANS
FOR THE SUOER RICH

DM me susan
DM me jeff

no shit
2 million
cash
each

— ROSIE (@Rosie) December 20, 2017

O"Donnell followd up with "I swear. I will write them a check."

i swear

i will write them a check

— ROSIE (@Rosie) December 20, 2017

Noting how totally illegal this is - even crazy Louise "hard drugs messed with my mind" Mensch chimed in:

Rosie disagreed - doubling down: 

i disagree
it is obvious there is a price
corker had one
collins too

flake
almost brave
he crawled out backwards

2 million to any GOP senator
who votes no
on KILLING AMERICANS

MILLIONS WITH OUT HEALTH CARE

MY GOD HAVE WE NO SO

— ROSIE (@Rosie) December 20, 2017

Enter conservative pundit Ben Shapiro: 

If Trump orders Sessions to investigate Rosie, he will be carved into Rushmore by Friday.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 20, 2017

To which well adjusted Rosie replied: Suck my d*ck Ben

 

suck my dick ben

— ROSIE (@Rosie) December 20, 2017

Something you want to tell us Rosie?

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Escobar: Vladimir Putin Takes Spotlight As Eurasia Connector

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

At his trademark annual year-end press conference in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin once again let drop selected foreign-policy nuggets essential to understanding what lies ahead on the turbulent Eurasian geopolitical chessboard.

By now it’s well known that Putin will run again in the presidential elections scheduled for March 18 (“it will be self-nomination” and “I hope for the overall support from the public”). The Man in Charge might as well continue to be in charge. So it’s always enlightening to bring down the (spin) noise: sit back, relax, and just listen.

On President Trump: “I am on first-name terms with Trump; yes, we would probably use the familiar ‘you.’ I hope he’ll get the opportunity to improve relations with Russia. Look at the markets, how they have grown. This means that investors trust the US economy, this means they trust what he [Donald Trump] is doing in this field.”

On Russiagate: “What’s so strange about this [diplomats speaking with officials in their host country]? Why do you have this ‘Russian spy’ hysteria?” On accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential race, Putin said, “They have been invented by those aiming to delegitimize Trump. These people don’t understand they are undermining their own country – they aren’t showing respect for the Americans [who] voted for Trump.”

On working together with Washington: “Russia and the US can work closely on a range of issues” even given the “well-known limitations” on Trump.

On potential US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty: “We hear about the problems with the INF Treaty. Apparently conditions are being created and an information-propaganda campaign is being run for a possible US withdrawal from the treaty. There is nothing good about a US withdrawal, that [would] be highly detrimental to international security. The US has de facto left the INF Treaty already, with the deployment of the Aegis ashore, but Russia is not going to leave the treaty. We will not be dragged into an arms race.”

Putin stressed that Russia’s defense spending was US$46 billion a year, while the US plans to spend $700 billion in 2018.

On the Arctic: “I have visited [the Arctic archipelago] Franz Josef Land; several years ago foreign guides, accompanying foreign tourist groups, would say that these islands ‘recently’ belonged to Russia. They had forgotten that [Franz Josef Land] is a Russian archipelago, but we reminded them, and at the moment everything is fine. We shouldn’t forget it. Developing all those resources in the Arctic should take place in sync with taking care of the environment … we should not impinge on economic activities of ethnic minorities.”

On Ukraine: “The Kiev authorities have no desire to implement the Minsk agreements, no desire to launch a real political process, the completion of which could be the implementation of an agreement on the special status of the Donbass, which is enshrined in the relevant law of Ukraine, adopted by the Rada [Ukraine’s parliament]. Russians and Ukrainians are basically one people” (the audience is audibly pleased).

On Syria: “The US is not contributing enough to the successful resolution of the Syrian crisis. It is important that none of the participants in this [Syrian peace] process have the desire or temptation to use various terrorist or quasi-terrorist radical groups to achieve their immediate political goals.”

On Iraq: “Let’s say, militants are parting for Iraq. We are telling our US colleagues, ‘Militants have gone this or that way.’ There is no reaction, they [militants] are just leaving. Why? Due to thinking that they could be used in the fight with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad. That’s very dangerous.”

On Russia possibly influencing North Korea to abandon its nuclear program: “Your congressmen, senators look so good, they have beautiful suits, shirts, they are seemingly clever people. They put us alongside North Korea and Iran. At the same time they push the [US] president to persuade us to solve the problems of North Korea and Iran together with you.”

On a nuclear DPRK: “On North Korea, we don’t accept it as a nuclear country. As for the US, it has gone beyond previous deals [with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] … and has provoked North Korea to withdraw from agreements.  I think we heard the US would stop military drills, but no … they didn’t. It is vital to act very carefully when dealing with the DPRK’s nuclear program.”

On China: “I have full confidence that cooperation with China is beyond any political agenda. We will always remain strategic partners, for a long period of time. We have similar approaches to the development of the international system. We are both interested in joint [economic] projects, including integration of OBOR [One Belt One Road] and the Eurasian Union.”

Crafting the integration soundtrack

And that takes us to the heart of the geopolitical New Great Game in Eurasia: the Russia-China strategic partnership, once again reaffirmed, and the deepening of integration between the New Silk Roads, formerly OBOR, now Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAUA).

Putin is clearly positive about the benefits for Russia from this economic interpenetration. He noted how “Russia was able to overcome major crises: the collapse of prices for energy carriers and trade sanctions. But the country is moving in the right direction with a greater focus on domestic production. Our internal trade grew by 3%. This has to mean something.”

Stressing how Moscow is totally on board the BRI, Putin implied how this cooperation extrapolates to both the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) spheres as well; and that’s where we should place Moscow’s current efforts to convince New Delhi – also a BRICS and SCO member – that betting on the BRI favors India’s interests.

As recently as early this week in New Delhi, after a trilateral meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been adamant: “I know India has problems, we discussed it today, with the concept of One Belt and One Road, but the specific problem in this regard should not make everything else conditional to resolving political issues.”

New Delhi has to be listening, as it was one of Moscow’s staunchest allies during the Cold War.

In a parallel development, Iran is bound to join the EAEU as early as February, according to Behrouz Hassanolfat, director of the Europe and Americas Department of Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization, as quoted by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

As Asia Times has reported, India and Iran are getting more in sync economically via a parallel Silk Road to Central Asia centered on the port of Chabahar. Iran is also an essential BRI hub, and now will become an EAEU hub as well.

As much as Beijing in relation to its BRI, Moscow has been on a charm offensive to enlarge the EAEU. Turkey – already on board the BRI – is a possible EAEU candidate for the near future, as well as India and Pakistan.

Even as Putin at his presser once again advanced the cause of these multiple cross-pollinations of Eurasian integration, India sometimes may give the impression of being the odd partner out. New Delhi has just hosted the first ASEAN-India Connectivity Summit, which can be interpreted as an attempt to go against the BRI. Yet the emergence of an anti-China bloc across Southeast Asia seems far-fetched.

In parallel, Moscow certainly does not welcome a somewhat evolving “Indo-Pacific” US/India/Japan alliance. The undercurrent narrative in Putin’s script could not be more crystal clear: The roadmap for Eurasia integration is all about the coming together of the BRI, EAEU, the SCO and BRICS.

Paul Craig Roberts Rages Against Trump"s National Security Speech

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

What do we make of Trump’s national security speech?

First of all, it is the military/security complex’s speech, and it is inconsistent with Trump’s intention of normalizing relations with Russia.

The military/security complex, using Trump’s position as President, has defined Russia and China as “revisionist powers,” Washington’s rivals who seek to put their own national interests ahead of Washington’s unilateralism. Russia and China are “revisionist powers” because their assertion of their national interests limits Washington’s hegemony.

In other words, Washington does not accept the validity of other countries’ interests if those interests are contrary to Washington’s interests. So, how does Trump expect to work with Russia and China when he reads a speech that Russia and China seek to “shape a world antithetical to our interests and values.”

“Our values” means, of course, Washington’s dominance.

Trump begins by honoring the military, police, Homeland Security, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, “America first” means domination by Washington over the citizenry as well as over foreign countries.

Trump then cloaks himself in the American people who “voted to make America great again.”

Then Trump’s speech picks up the Israel Lobby’s line about a bad deal with Iran and asserts that previous administrations tolerated ISIS, when in fact they created it and set in upon Libya and Syria.

Then he attacks environmental protection and complains of illegal aliens, while ignoring the refugees Washington’s wars imposed on Europe.

In an era of neoconservative celebration of US world hegemony, Trump accuses his predecessors of losing confidence in America. This is extraordinary.

When a country’s entire foreign policy is based on the assumption that it is the “exceptional and indispensable country,” how is this a loss of confidence? It is massive arrogance and hubris. The problem is not a loss of confidence by the rulers but an overbearing hubris.

Then Trump claims that through him, Americans again rule their nation.

He says that now Washington is serving the citizens. Looking at the tax bill, he must mean that citizens consist of the One Percent.

He next associates making America first with more money for the military.

Then he blames Iran for terrorism, something that Iran lives in fear of, but he does not mention Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism or that of the US military/security complex’s which encourages terrorism as a weapon against Iran and Russia and as an excuse for its massive budget and power.

Trump then claims credit for the Russian/Syrian defeat of ISIS. It has been proved that ISIS is supported and financed by Washington. Trump’s claim is even more ridiculous than the previous claims of the Obama regime that the US defeated National Socialist Germany. Russia, which did defeat Germany, was not invited to the anniversary celebration.

Trump next demands that the countries we defend pay for it. Who are these countries and who do we defend them from? He can only mean Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel, and Japan. Is Washington defending them from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran or from the terrorists Washington creates, arms, and supplies to overthrow Libya, Syria and whatever countries Washington is successful siccing terrorists on. Apparently, some of these CIA-created terrorist organizations break loose from their creator and conduct operations on their own. So, Washington is a government that creates its own enemies.

Trump next brags on the sanctions he has imposed on “the North Korean regime.” He doesn’t mention, and I would bet he does not know, that Washington has withheld a peace treaty since the 1950s from North Korea. Washington has kept the war status open for 64 years. Having seen the fate of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, etc., little wonder North Korea wants nuclear weapons.

Trump, standing there threatening the world, says that Washington will take all necessary steps to prevent North Korea from threatening the world.

Trump then delivers the establishment’s propaganda that unemployment is at an all time low and the stock market at an all time high. So, what is Trump rescuing Middle America from if unemployment is at an all time low? What happened to Trump’s case against jobs offshoring?

This is nothing but feel-good talk. Trump is repeating the lies because the lies make him look good. What Trump should be doing is pointing out the meaninglessness of the unemployment rate, because it doesn’t count the unemployed, only those few who looked for a job in the last 4 weeks. He should be pointing out that the stock market is not a sign of a growing economy but a sign of massive money creation by the central banks of the US, EU, UK, and Japan. The massive printing of money has flooded into paper assets, driving up their price and further enriching the One Percent.

Trump says that one leg of the strategy is to “preserve peace through strength.” What peace is he talking about? In the past two decades Washington has destroyed in whole or part eight countries and overthrown democratic governments in others. Is Trump equating peace with Washington’s wars? No other country has initiated wars and invasions and bombings and aggressive military actions on other countries’ borders. Trump says that America is threatened by enemies and to protect us the military will be enlarged. He said he was overturning the “defense sequester,” something that clearly does not exist.

My conclusion is that Trump has surrendered to the real rulers of America - the powerful interest groups such as the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, the environmental polluters, Wall Street and the banks “too big to fail.”

America is a country in which despite the hopes flyover America had in Trump, an oligarchy rules.

The American people, regardless of who they elect, have no voice, no input, no representation.

The governments of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were the last governments that were subject to any accountability. With the Clinton regime the United States entered into the age of tyranny.

The Full List Of Every GOP Senator Who Stands To Be Personally Enriched By The Tax Bill

Submitted by David Sirota of International Business Times

When the U.S. Senate takes up the final tax bill this week, more than a quarter of all GOP senators will be voting on a bill that includes a special provision that could give them a new tax cut through their real estate shell companies, according to federal records reviewed by International Business Times.

The provision was not in the original bill passed by the Senate on Dec. 1. It was embedded in the final bill by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is among the lawmakers that stand to personally benefit from the provision. 

In response to Democratic lawmakers who have slammed the provision as a lobbyist-sculpted giveaway to the rich, Republican Majority Whip John Cornyn promoted on Twitter a column by Ryan Ellis, a registered bank lobbyist who has been working to influence the tax legislation and who has defended the provision.

In all, 14 Republican senators (see list below) hold financial interests in 26 income-generating real-estate partnerships — worth as much as $105 million in total. Those holdings together produced between $2.4 million and $14.1 million in rent and interest income in 2016, according to federal records. 

IBT first reported on the tax carve-out, which allows investors in “pass-through” entities, including real-estate partnerships such as LLCs and LPs, with few employees to deduct part of their income that passes through those partnerships. In response to IBT’s reporting, Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who owns up to $35 million in “pass-through” real-estate interests, claimed he did not know of the carve-out when he announced his support for the legislation on Friday, after previously casting the only Republican vote against the bill in the Senate, which did not then include the provision.

In the face of a Twitter-trending hashtag #CorkerKickback, Corker has been vociferously defended by Liam Donovan, a registered lobbyist for the construction and real estate industry who is lobbying Congress on tax reform and specifically on “pass-through rates,” according to federal records.

While Republicans have argued the House version of the bill contained the controversial provision, experts have told IBT the provision appeared in the legislation only after the bill was finalized during House-Senate Conference Committee deliberations.

“The mechanism is completely new and can’t be found in any prior version of the bill,” Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute of Economics and Tax Policy, previously told IBT.

Because the provision was added by the conference committee, it is “unlikely to have been fully priced into the revenue estimate, because the new provision was never subject to the benefits of crowdsourced analysis of all its implications,” University of Southern California law professor Edward Kleinbard told IBT.

GOP senators will vote on a tax bill with a real estate tax break that would benefit
14 of them. Sens. Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn and John Barrasso

Corker, the Senate’s fourth richest member in 2015, with an estimated net worth of over $69 million, reported the highest 2016 income from real-estate partnerships — up to $7 million — among GOP senators. His income came from three properties held by LLCs that together were worth as much as $35 million. Montana Sen. Steve Daines, whose estimated net worth was $14.4 million in 2015, reported earning between $425,000 and $4.2 million last year in rental income from eight properties managed by Genesis LLC. Daines, with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, pushed for a more generous tax deduction for pass-through entities during the Senate tax bill process.

Other top earners were Johnson and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, who both earned as much as $1 million in 2016 from real estate pass-through vehicles.

Elaine Hatch, the wife of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who said Monday that he wrote the real-estate tax break and disputed IBT’s report that the provision had not been in previous versions of the bill, owns a stake in a real-estate LLC worth up to $500,000 that generated between $5,000 and $15,000 of income from rent/royalties, interest and capital gains in 2016.

Several of these senators were also top recipients of campaign cash from the real estate industry during the 2016 election cycle. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman’s campaign took in over $900,000 from real estate industry PACs and individuals; Johnson received roughly $780,000; and Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson got $520,000 from the industry.

Beyond Republican senators, other major beneficiaries of the provision could be President Donald Trump, who owns or directs over 560 companies, most of which are LLCs or LPs. Democrats in recent days have seized on the provision — and its potential benefits to Republican lawmakers — in demanding the bill be halted.

“President Trump made several promises to the American people on tax reform, including the assurance that his tax proposal wouldn’t enrich people like him,” Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware told IBT in an emailed statement. “Unfortunately, Republicans are rushing through a tax plan that does indeed enrich the wealthiest people in our country, including business-owners like Mr. Trump. It’s regrettable and, frankly, shameful that my Republican colleagues are rushing ahead with their partisan tax bill despite the mounting questions and concerns about its provisions.”

President Trump: "I"m Not" Considering Firing Robert Mueller, But It"s "Not Looking Good"

After a week of rumors, denials, whistleblowers, backlash, demands, threats, lies, bias, and anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.

"No, I’m not,” Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to Politico.

The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat.

Trump"s allies complained this weekend about the way Mueller"s team went about obtaining from the presidential transition. Mueller"s spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the special counsel"s office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously served on Mueller"s team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.

And while Trump said "I"m not," Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed "many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not looking good."

Additionally, as The Hill reports, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Sunday said he has no reason to believe President Trump intends to fire special counsel Robert Mueller amid the ongoing investigation into Russia"s election interference.

"I don"t have any reason to think that the president is going to do that, but that"s obviously up to him," Mnuchin told host Jake Tapper on CNN"s "State of the Union," adding that the topic did not arise when he dined with Trump and Vice President Pence on Saturday night.

The finance chief argued, however, that the ongoing probe is "a giant distraction" that needs to wrap up "quickly." 

Going by Trump"s previous comments, we would not be surprised in the least if news breaks tomorrow of Mueller"s firing.

The Media"s Reign Of Error Exposed

Authored by Mark Hemingway via WeeklyStandard.com,

Covering the Trump presidency has not always been the media’s finest hour, but even grading on that curve, the month of December has brought astonishing screwups.

Professor and venerable political observer Walter Russell Mead tweeted on December 8, “I remember Watergate pretty well, and I don’t remember anything like this level of journalistic carelessness back then. The constant stream of ‘bombshells’ that turn into duds is doing much more to damage the media than anything Trump could manage.”

On December 1, ABC News correspondent Brian Ross went on air and made a remarkable claim. For months, the media have been furiously trying to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Ross reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had just pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, was prepared to testify that President Trump had instructed him to contact Russian officials before the 2016 election, while Trump was still a candidate. If true, it would have been a gamechanger. But Ross’s claim was inaccurate. Flynn’s documented attempts to contact the Russians came after Trump was president-elect, allegedly trying to lay diplomatic groundwork for the new administration. Ross was suspended by ABC for four weeks without pay for the error.

 

Later that same weekend, the New York Times ran a story about Trump transition official K. T. McFarland, charging that she had lied to congressional investigators about knowledge of the Trump transition team’s contacts with Russia. The article went through four headline changes and extensive edits after it was first published, substantially softening and backing away from claims made in the original version. The first headline made a definitive claim: “McFarland Contradicted Herself on Russia Contacts, Congressional Testimony Shows.” The headline now reads “Former Aide’s Testimony on Russia Is Questioned.” The website Newsdiffs, which tracks edits of articles after publication, shows nearly the entire body of the article was rewritten. (The Times website makes no mention of the changes.)

 

Still in that first weekend of December, Senator Orrin Hatch criticized the excesses of federal welfare programs, saying, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves.” The quote was taken wildly out of context. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough as well as journalists from Mic, Newsweek, and the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatch was directly criticizing the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with some suggesting Hatch thought children should be put to work to pay for subsidized health care. Not only was Hatch not criticizing the CHIP program, he cowrote the recent bill to extend its funding.

 

On December 5, Reuters and Bloomberg reported that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank account records of President Trump and family members, possibly related to business done in Russia. The report was later corrected to say Mueller was subpoenaing “people or entities close to Mr. Trump.”

 

Then on December 8, another Russia bombshell turned into a dud. CNN’s Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb reported Donald Trump Jr. had been sent an email on September 4, 2016, with a decryption key to a WikiLeaks trove of hacked emails from Clinton confidant and Democratic operative John Podesta—that is, before the hacked emails were made public. (WikiLeaks is widely surmised to act as a front for Russian intelligence.) MSNBC and CBS quickly claimed to have confirmed CNN’s scoop. Within hours, though, CNN’s report was discredited. The email was sent on September 14, after the hacked Podesta emails had been made publicly available. CNN later admitted it never saw the email it was reporting the contents of.

This is just eight days’ worth of blundering.

Since October of last year, when Franklin Foer at Slate filed an erroneous report on a computer server in Trump Tower communicating with a Russian bank, there have been an unprecedented number of media faceplants, most of them directly related to the Russia-collusion theory.

The errors always run in the same direction—they report or imply that the Trump campaign was in league with Moscow.

For a politicized and overwhelmingly liberal press corps, the wish that this story be true is obviously the father to the errors. Just as obviously, there are precedents for such high-profile embarrassments in the past. (Remember Dan Rather’s “scoop” on George W. Bush’s National Guard service?) But flawed reporting in the Trump era is becoming more the norm than the exception, suggesting the media have become far too willing to abandon some pretty basic journalistic standards.

Editors at top news organizations once treated anonymous sourcing as a necessary evil, a tool to be used sparingly. Now anonymous sources dominate Trump coverage.

It’s not just a problem for readers, who should rightly be skeptical of information someone isn’t willing to vouch for by name. It’s a problem for reporters, too, because anonymous sources are less likely to be cautious and diligent in providing information. According to CNN, the sources behind the busted report on Trump Jr.’s contact with WikiLeaks didn’t intend to deceive and had been reliable in the past. Maybe so, but given the network’s repeated errors it’s difficult to just take CNN’s word for it.

But it’s one thing to use anonymous sources; it’s quite another to be entirely trusting of them. CNN decided to report the contents of an email to Donald Trump Jr. based only on the say-so of two anonymous sources and without seeing the emails. “I remember when I was [a staffer] on the Ways and Means committee and I would try and give reporters stories, and I remember the Wall Street Journal demanded to see a document,” former Bush administration press secretary Ari Fleischer tells The Weekly Standard. “They wouldn’t take it from me if I didn’t give them the document, and I thought, ‘Good for them!’ ”

What makes the botched story of the WikiLeaks email more troubling is how quickly MSNBC and CBS ran with CNN’s scoop. “It’s hard to imagine how independent people could repeatedly misread a date on an email and do so for three different networks,” says Fleischer. “Whose eyesight is that bad?”

This points to an additional problem with the sourcing on these unfounded reports. The only way three networks could claim to have verified the same specious story is if they were all relying on the very same sources. Many of the flawed Trump reports appear to be sourced from a very narrow circle of people, who no doubt share partisan motivations or personal animus.

Certainly, it appears a number of recent spurious stories have originated as leaks from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. In Raju and Herb’s report, they revealed that Trump Jr. had been asked about the WikiLeaks email in closed-door testimony before the committee. After CNN’s scoop imploded, a spokesman for Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, issued a classic non-denial denial, telling Politico “that neither he nor his staff leaked any ‘non-public information’ ” about Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony.

Meanwhile, the Russia investigation has been very good for raising Schiff’s profile. A December 13 press release from the Republican National Committee notes the congressman has at that point spent 20 hours, 44 minutes, and 49 seconds on television since Trump took office, talking mostly about the investigation (pity the low-level staffer who must have had to do the research for that release). During that time, Schiff has always declined to discuss the particulars of the intel committee’s work. Nonetheless, consideration of his sensitive position hasn’t stopped him from offering all manner of innuendo to national TV audiences about evidence suggesting Russia collusion.

For their part, the media don’t seem to be coming to grips with the damage they’re doing to their own credibility. CNN, which calls itself “the most trusted name in news,” didn’t retract their WikiLeaks report but rewrote it in such a way as to render the story meaningless. They also came to the defense of Raju and Herb, saying the reporters acted in accordance with the network’s editorial policies. And of course they didn’t out their sources—the ultimate punishment news organizations can mete out to anonymous tipsters who steer them wrong.

It understandably infuriates the media that President Trump remains unwilling to own up to his own glaring errors and untruths, while news organizations run correction after correction. And it also understandably upsets the media to watch the president actively attack and seek to undermine their work, which remains vital to ensuring accountability in American governance.

What they haven’t grasped is how perversely helpful to him they are being: On a very basic level, President Trump’s repeated salvos against “fake news” have resonance because, well, there does indeed appear to be a lot of fake news.

“There is nothing wrong with holding powerful people accountable. There’s nothing wrong with investigating whether or not collusion took place. But there’s a lot wrong when because you want to believe in the story so much you suspend skepticism,” says Fleischer.

 

“You let your guard down. You abandon the normal filters that protect journalistic integrity. And you fail to also hold to account powerful leakers, or powerful members of Congress who themselves have an anti-Trump agenda. It’s called putting your thumb on the scale.”

Mueller "Improperly" Obtained "Tens of Thousands" Of Trump Transition Emails

Special Counsel Robert Mueller"s team has taken possession of "many tens of thousands" of emails from the Trump transition team, obtained through the General Services Administration - the government agency responsible for hosting the transition email system which used a "ptt.gov" address, and which according to a Trump lawyer were improperly obtained through "unlawful conduct."

The trove of documents, which includes sensitive emails to and from Trump son-in-law and top advisor Jared Kushner, comprise 12 email accounts - one of which reportedly contains around 7,000 emails. Mueller"s team has reportedly been using the emails as the basis for witness interviews, sources tell Axios. 

The transition emails are said to include sensitive exchanges on matters that include potential appointments, gossip about the views of particular senators involved in the confirmation process, speculation about vulnerabilities of Trump nominees, strategizing about press statements, and policy planning on everything from war to taxes. -Axios

“Mueller is using the emails to confirm things, and get new leads,” a transition source adds.

FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller III

Transition officials had reportedly pre-sorted emails in anticipation of Mueller"s investigation, separating "privileged" communications from the rest of the cache, and sources say they were surprised to learn of Mueller"s use of the emails - as they have been fully cooperative with the special counsel investigation. “They ask us to waive NDAs [nondisclosure agreements] and things like that,” a second source said. “We have never said ‘no’ to anything.”

Tranistion team lawyer Kory Langhofer says the Special Counsel obtained the documents through "unlawful conduct" by the General Services Administration, reports Fox News. 

In a letter obtained by Fox News and sent to House and Senate committees on Saturday, the transition team’s attorney alleges “unlawful conduct” by the career staff at the General Services Administration in handing over transition documents to the special counsel’s office.

 

Kory Langhofer, the counsel to Trump for America, wrote in the letter that the special counsel’s office is aware that the GSA “did not own or control the records in question.”

 

But, Langhofer says, Mueller’s team has “extensively used the materials in question, including portions that are susceptible to claims of privilege.”

 

The Trump transition team lawyer argued the actions “impair the ability of future presidential transition teams to candidly discuss policy and internal matters that benefit the country as a whole.” 

The emails could shed light on the details leading up to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn"s communications with Rusian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - with whom Flynn had several call to discuss sanctions, as well as an upcoming UN Security Council vote on whether or not to condemn Israel"s building of settlements, which the Obama administration was preparing to allow to go through. The New York Times reported in early December that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel. 

According to prosecutors, on Dec. 22, Mr. Flynn discussed with Mr. Kislyak an upcoming United Nations Security Council vote on whether to condemn Israel’s building of settlements. At the time, the Obama administration was preparing to allow a Security Council vote on the matter.

 

Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kushner took the lead in those efforts. Mr. Mueller’s team has emails that show Mr. Flynn saying he would work to kill the vote, the people briefed on the matter said. -NYT

In September, Politico reported that Jared Kushner continued to use a private email account that had been set up during the transition to communicate with fellow administration officials during Trump’s first nine months in office - however it was used to send "less than 100 emails" which mostly consisted of "quips about news items and minor commentary." 

“Mr. Kushner uses his White House email address to conduct White House business,” Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner, said in a statement Sunday. “Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address.”

Politico also noted that Kushner’s use of a private email account was part of a larger pattern of Trump administration aides using personal email accounts for government business. Kushner allegedly used the private account to communicate with Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn and Josh Raffel. Buried deep within the report, however, that that There is no indication that Kushner has shared any sensitive or classified material on his private account, or that he relies on his private email account more than his official White House account to conduct government business. Aides say he prefers to call or text over using email.

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner

As ZeroHedge reported at the time, Politico said Kushner and Ivanka Trump set up their private family domain late last year before moving to Washington from New York, according to people with knowledge of events as well as publicly available internet registration records. At the time, Kushner, who served as a senior campaign adviser, was expected to be named to a White House role, while Ivanka Trump was publicly saying she didn’t plan to work in her father’s administration, though she ended up taking an unpaid role with an office in the West Wing. People familiar with the account say it was primarily set up for personal use, but that Kushner has used it to communicate with acquaintances outside the White House about matters relating to Trump and the administration, according to people who have received messages.

In November, the Senate Judiciary Committee said Kushner failed to turn over relevant documents pertaining to a "Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite" as well as emails received from WikiLeaks. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote in a letter to Kushner"s attorney, Abbe Lowell: "We appreciate your voluntary cooperation with the Committee’s investigation, but the production appears to have been incomplete.”

According to leaked information, Kushner allegedly neglected to disclose that Aleksander Torshin, a powerful Russian central banker and former senator with ties to both President Vladimir Putin and Russian organized crime, had reached out to the campaign with a "dinner invite" and an offer to connect Trump with Putin. Kushner, who was on the email chain, reportedly instructed junior campaign aides to rebuff the meeting. As reported by NBC, "Kushner rebuffed the request after receiving a lengthy email exchange about it between a West Virginia man and Trump campaign aide Rick Dearborn, the sources said."

Grassley and Feinstein"s letter point to several omissions, and addresses concerns raised by Kushner"s attorney over "Executive Privilege" by creating a "privilege log" to segregate communications. 

“If, as you suggest, Mr. Kushner was unaware of, for example, any attempts at Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, then presumably there would be few communications concerning many of the persons identified,” the letter reads, asking Kushner to turn over all responsive documents by Nov 27. As Politico reported at the time: 

According to the lawmakers, Kushner’s attorney suggested providing some documents might “implicate the president’s Executive Privilege.” In their letter, they asked Lowell to resolve those issues and produce the documents or create a “privilege log” to detail over which documents the president is asserting executive privilege.

 

Grassley and Feinstein also said Kushner declined to produce documents connected to his security clearance application, citing their confidentiality. The lawmakers said they intend to take Lowell up on a separate request to visit his office to review the documents in person, but they said the committee would not waive its request to obtain its own copies.

Lowell responded, stating that they had "provided the Judiciary Committee with all relevant documents that had to do with Mr. Kushner"s calls, contacts or meetings with Russians during the campaign and transition, which was the request," adding that Kushner had told the committee they would be open to additional requests for information. 

And according to Transition team attorney Kory Langhofer, Mueller"s team ignored any sort of "privilege log" and obtained the emails through "unlawful conduct," after which they extensively used the materials in question, "including portions that are susceptible to claims of privilege." 

The transition legal team argues it could be a violation of the 4th Amendment – which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Kory Langhofer, the counsel to Trump for America, wrote in Saturday"s letter that the GSA “did not own or control the records in question.”

 

The transition attorney said they discovered the “unauthorized disclosures” by the GSA on December 12th and 13th and raised concerns with the special counsel’s office.

Langhofer also wrote that some of the records obtained by the special counsel’s office from the GSA “have been leaked to the press by unknown persons” and argued that the actions “impair the ability of future presidential transition teams to candidly discuss policy and internal matters that benefit the country as a whole.”

Given the reported use of private email accounts by Jared Kushner other transition team members, it stands to reason that if Robert Mueller"s team finds anything "of interest," sent to or from said accounts, they will become subject to a full review as part of the ever-expanding investigation.