Collusion Delusion: Trump Lost The Special Olympics

Yesterday, Tim Malloy of the Quinnipiac poll wrote that hungry for a candidate to take on Trump, "Democrats and Democratic leaners put the three B's, Biden, Bernie and Beto, at the top in a race where age, race and gender take a back seat to electability and shared views... 53% of American voters say they definitely will not vote for Trump in the 2020 general election if he is the Republican candidate." Another 30% say they definitely will vote for Trump and 13% say they will consider voting for Trump. Only 21% of independent voters say they are definitely voting for Trump. If that doesn't change between now and November of 2020, not only will Trump lose in a landslide, he'll lose all the swing states, including Ohio, Iowa and Florida,-- as well as North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Arizona and possibly even Georgia. How sweet would that be!

And, of course, there's no reason to believe Trump's polling numbers will remain the same. It's far more likely, judging from his life-long patterns of behavior, that his numbers will continue to sink-- at least among independents and even the few Republican women who can still stomach him. A little more sinking and Texas is gone as well.

In yesterday's Washington Post, James Hohmann noted Trump's reversal on the Special Olympics. He made a mess and he wants credit for cleaning it up. It's a pattern that is distinctly Trumpian. The asshole "declared that he had decided to save the Special Olympics as he left the White House to fly to Michigan for a rally to support his reelection campaign. Then, in Grand Rapids last night, Trump announced that he’s going to make sure the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is fully funded. Trump’s budget earlier this month proposed slashing that program, which funds the cleanup of the Great Lakes, by 90 percent-- from $300 million to $30 million... During his first year in office, Trump called for eliminating the program entirely. Last year and this year, he asked Congress to cut it by 90 percent. But Republicans and Democrats on the Hill teamed up to fully fund it over White House objections... This is part of a pattern. Remember when Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and then attacked Democrats for not protecting the 'dreamers' from deportations that he put them at risk for?"

After the tremendous uproar Wednesday about his decision to reduce the federal contributions to the Special Olympics to ZERO, Trump sensed he was in trouble and as he was leaving for Michigan, he told reporters triumphantly, heroically that "The Special Olympics will be funded. I just told my people, 'I want to fund the special Olympics'. I heard about it this morning [and] I have overridden my people. We’re funding the Special Olympics." So there you go-- he kicked Betsy DeVos in the teeth. Not that it mattered; there's no way that little gem-- one among hundreds, would have ever gotten through Congress-- the same way the defunding of the Great Lakes clean up wouldn't have. But now he can-- and will-- claim to be the hero. About 30% of Americans are literally too stupid to comprehend the little Times Square trick he just pulled on them.

And if that 30% of 2-digit IQ Trump supporters can't understand that, how are they supposed to understand the p.r. stunt he pulled in regard to the still unreleased Mueller Report. Based on a press release from the fake president's fake attorney general, the New York Times and the Washington Post spread the bullshit about Trump been exonerated and how the Mueller Report discovered nothing. They should both be sitting in the corner with dunce caps.



No one pulled the wool over David Corn's eyes and his Mother Jones essay, Here’s the Real Trump-Russia Hoax begins the long arduous task of setting the record straight. Short version: "It’s Trump defenders and lefty Russiagate skeptics claiming there is no scandal." He wrote that "Two fundamental facts were established long before Mueller completed his investigation. First, the Russians attacked an American election in order to sow chaos, hurt Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump. Second, Trump and his top advisers during the campaign repeatedly denied this attack was underway, echoing and amplifying Moscow disinformation (the false claim that Russia was not attacking). Whether or not the Trumpers were directly in cahoots with the Russian government, they ran interference for Vladimir Putin’s assault on the United States, and they even did so after the intelligence community had briefed Trump on Russia’s culpability. So to determine if the Barr triumphalists are acting in good faith, you need only ask them a simple question: do you accept these basic facts and acknowledge the profound seriousness of each one?"

The Russian attack on the 2016 election was an attempt to subvert the foundation of American society: the democratic process. How can Americans have faith in their government, if elections are undermined by secret schemers, including a foreign government? It is certainly arguable that the Russian intervention-- particularly the stealing and drip-drip-drip dumping of the John Podesta emails across the final four weeks of the election-- was one of several decisive factors in a contest that had a narrow and tight finish. Consequently, there is a strong case that Moscow helped shift the course of US history by contributing to the election of Trump. (And recognizing this is not the same as defending Hillary Clinton or concocting an excuse for the Democrats’ embarrassing loss to Trump.)

During the campaign and afterward, some Trump backers and some critics on the left, including columnist and media scold Glenn Greenwald, questioned whether the Russians indeed engaged in such skulduggery. (The Nation, where I once worked, published an article promoting a report that claimed the Russians did not hack the Democratic National Committee-- and then had to backtrack when that report turned out to be bunk.)

...[A]nyone citing the Mueller report, as it is narrowly capsulized by Barr, must also accept his key finding: Russia attacked the United States and intervened in the election. (They must also accept that, as the Barr letter disclosed, Mueller found evidence suggesting Trump obstructed justice but did not reach a final judgment on this question.)

Moscow’s intervention was an outrageous action, and concern about this should unite right and left and anyone in between. There is nothing more important in this whole affair than the attack itself. Those who are not profoundly distressed about the consequences and implications of that assault-- including those who instead focus more on distractions, such as conspiracy theories about the Deep State or the role of the Steele dossier-- should answer this question: Is it because you don’t truly care this happened, or is it because acknowledging this reality interferes with your ideological or partisan loyalties? Or is it both? It is hard to see how a possible misuse of wiretapping authority by the Obama administration (an unproven assertion hurled by Republicans) or possible overstatements from Democrats or liberal pundits about Trump-Russia connections (which leftist skeptics have cited) could be more important than an attack on the US political system that was a factor in the outcome of the election.

Back to the second fundamental fact. On Tuesday, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, responding to the Barr letter, proclaimed, “The idea that any of us, and me as a campaign manager, would cheat, steal, lie, cut corners, talk to Russians, was an insult from the beginning.” Her statement was a lie about lying.

The public record is undeniable: Trump campaign people communicated with Russians during the campaign numerous times. Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian emissary who they were informed would slip them dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of a secret Kremlin plot to help Trump’s campaign. Manafort, while serving as Trump’s campaign chairman, secretly met with a Ukrainian-Russian business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik who was a go-between with Oleg Deripaska, a Putin-friendly Russian oligarch. Manafort handed Kilimnik private campaign polling data and discussed a so-called peace-plan that presumably would involve lifting sanctions on Russia. (According to Mueller, the FBI has concluded that Kilimnik was associated with Russian intelligence.)

Not to mention that through much of the summer of 2016, Trump foreign policy aide George Papdopoulos, according to Mueller, was trying to set up an “off the record” meeting with Putin’s office. Carter Page, another foreign policy adviser, spoke with Russian officials in Moscow, where he made a speech assailing the West’s tough stance against Putin for his violent intervention in Ukraine.

All of this occurred while Russia was attacking the United States. (Manafort met with Kilimnik and Papadopoulos reached out to Putin’s office after it had been reported that Russia was the likely culprit in the hack-and-dump operation seeking to influence the US election.) And these contacts happened as Trump and his campaign-- most notably, Trump Jr. and Manafort-- were also publicly denying that any such attack was underway.

These denials had no basis in fact and ran counter to what cybersecurity experts were saying-- but they precisely echoed what the Russians were saying: It ain’t us! The combination of public denials and private contacts could only have been read as encouragement by Moscow. Trump at one point even called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, and, according to a Mueller indictment, Russian government hackers attempted to do so that very evening.

This is the original sin of the Trump presidency: he and his crew aided and abetted the Russian attack by lying about it and running interference for the Russians. And contrary to what Conway asserted, the Trump crowd, after the election, lied about most of these interactions. Trump and Trump Jr. lied about the Trump Tower meeting, claiming it had been merely a discussion of Russian adoption policy. Manafort lied to Mueller’s investigators about his meeting with Kilimnik. (By the way, Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, was indicted by Mueller for lying about his efforts during the campaign to contact WikiLeaks as it pumped out Democratic material swiped by the Russians.)

One of Trump’s biggest lies about Russia was exposed nearly a year after the election: While running for president, he had told voters that he had no business links with Russia, yet for much of the campaign his Trump Organization had been secretly negotiating a deal to develop a Trump tower in Moscow—which could have landed Trump hundreds of millions of dollars and which likely could not have proceeded if Trump had dared to speak negatively about Putin. Such a whopping conflict of interest is a huge scandal, with or without any direct coordination between Trump and Russia’s covert operators. And for that Moscow venture, Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer, had communicated with Putin’s office and asked for assistance. Cohen later admitted to lying to Congress about this.

There were contacts with Russia and lies about those contacts-- and false denials that provided cover for the Russian attack. How can all this be regarded as not a scandal? Especially before the full contents of the Mueller report, which might contain new information about these parts of the story, is made public, if that ever happens.

And there’s another matter not covered by Barr’s skinny summary: the counterintelligence inquiry that was part of Mueller’s probe. This was the investigation of whether Russia had manipulated or influenced Trump or anyone within his campaign or circle. The FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation began under FBI chief James Comey in the summer of 2016 as a counterintelligence project, not a criminal investigation. But as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said this week, “It is not clear whether, or to what extent, the Mueller report, which is focused on prosecutorial decisions, will even discuss counterintelligence findings.” (Counterintelligence investigations are super-secret, often relying on classified intelligence gathering, and usually do not end with prosecutions or public pronouncements.)

It always seemed quite possible-- probable-- that the Russians did not need to conspire directly with Trump or his campaign to go after Democratic targets or to mount a disinformation campaign boosting Trump and discrediting Clinton. Yet Trump, by claiming this foreign adversary was not attacking the United States, made it easier for Putin to pull this off. Whether the Trump gang helped the Russian operation deliberately or inadvertently, it committed a foul act that undermined national security and a national election. Anyone who doesn’t accept this-- Trump and his lieutenants assisting the attack, whether or not a crime was committed-- as significant wrongdoing deserving investigation and opprobrium ought not to be considered a serious voice in any discussion of the Trump-Russia scandal.

Yet now there are many rushing to the their keyboards and strutting before television cameras to declare the scandal was nothing more than trickery concocted by sore-loser Democrats and unscrupulous journalists. Far from cooking up anything, many reporters worked hard to slice through the lies knitted by Trump and his allies and revealed many of the essential facts noted above. The Russiagate detractors and the Trump champions are deliberately and deceptively narrowing the question to focus only on direct conspiracy between the Trump camp and the Kremlin, pertaining specifically to the attack. They are embracing Trump’s own self-serving standard. They are studiously ignoring what has already been established: Moscow waged information warfare against the United States, Trump’s campaign enthusiastically engaged with Russians while the attack was transpiring (conveying to Moscow that it did not mind the Kremlin’s intervention), and Trumpists lied about these interactions and misled the public about the Russian operation. All these gleeful Russiagate deniers now exploiting the minimalist Barr letter to diminish or suppress the Trump-Russia scandal are conducting an exercise of diversion that is of tremendous benefit to two men-- Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin-- and a disservice to the American public.

 

Trump And Pruitt Are Slashing Great Lakes Clean Up Funding From $300 Million To... $10 Million

Trump wants to build up the military and cut taxes for the wealthy, so he's busy slashing budgets. One victim is funding for Great Lakes cleanup-- by a phenomenal 97%! Is that what he meant by Making America Great Again? That's a fifth of the world's freshwater!

The White House is proposing to slash Environmental Protection Agency funding that pays for Great Lakes pollution cleanup by 97 percent, according to a budget document obtained by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

The potential cuts are part of President Donald Trump's initial 2018 budget proposal, detailed in a U.S. Office of Management and Budget "passback" to the EPA that outlines drastic cuts to an agency Trump has called a "job killer" and promised to reduce to "tidbits" as a candidate.

The proposal would virtually eliminate annual Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding, slashing it from $300 million to $10 million among other cuts that would altogether reduce the EPA's total budget by a quarter.

...The GLRI funds state and local projects that combat invasive species, restore wildlife habitats and clean up watersheds polluted by a Rust Belt economic legacy across the eight-state Great Lakes region. It has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress, who in the past have restored smaller, $50 million cuts proposed under President Barack Obama.

In December, Congress authorized the GLRI at $300 million a year through 2021 with standalone authorization, meaning Congress could choose to restore funding up to that level each year even if Trump holds to the proposed cut.

Brian Patrick, spokesperson for U.S. House Great Lakes Task Force Chair Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, said the White House could expect Republican pushback from the delegation if the proposed GLRI cuts remain.

...A coalition of environmental and conservation groups that advocates for GLRI funding said the cuts would devastate a working program.

I bet this isn't something the Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voters who gave us Trump had in mind! Nor what voters in upstate New York near Lakes Ontario and Erie had in mind-- nor the voters in MN-08 along the western shores of Lake Superior. Huizenga's district, (MI-02) stretches along Lake Michigan from Macatawa, past Grand Haven, Muskegon right up to the shore of Hamlin Lake. People are serious about lake living-- deadly serious. I wonder how many are having an "oops" moment. After all, Trump won MI-02 by a wide margin-- 55.8% to 38.2%. It was one of the districts that gave Trump his 11,692 votes win (out of 4.5 million votes cast statewide) in Michigan.

Four New York districts bordering on Great Lakes went for Trump, including Chris Collins' district, NY-27, which is the only congressional district that is located along both Lake Ontario and Lake Erie... and gave Trump his widest margin anywhere in the state-- 59.7% to 35.2%. These are how many people in the Lake shore counties that are part of NY-27 voted for Trump:

• Erie- 188,303
• Niagara- 51,961
• Orleans- 10,936

There are 10 Republicans on the House Great Lakes Task Force-- Jack Bergman (R-MI), Chris Collins (R-NY), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), David Joyce (R-OH), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Paul Mitchell (R-MI), Jim Renacci (R-OH), Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jackie Walorski (R-IN). Trump won all their districts.

Virulent anti-environment congressman Peter Roskam chose not to join the Task Force even though the social and economic importance of the Illinois coast is gigantic, bordering, the most populous part of the state and including some of the most valued real estate in the Midwest. It's the most densely populated coastal area in the entire Great Lakes region, extending 63 miles along the southern reach of the western shore of Lake Michigan. The state’s jurisdiction extends across a portion of the lake, covering approximately 1,500 square miles. Roskam's likely opponent in 2018 is Geoff Petzel, who has a very different perspective on environmental protection than Roskam. And Petzel has been very outspoken about Trump's threats to the EPA. Friday he told us that "unfortunately, Trump's proposal to cut EPA funding is consistent with the overall position of his administration. It is remarkably pro-business and racist. First and foremost, his proposal would eliminate the environmental justice programs the EPA administers in generally low income, high minority, heavily polluted urban areas. These programs are intended to reduce pollution and avoid new pollution sources from being placed in low income and minority communities where these populations are often unable to fight back and already have a disproportionally high concentration of polluting facilities. Trump's proposal also ensures that environmental enforcement budgets will be slashed and large companies will be able to pollute more without fear of enforcement. Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp… his recent decision to overturn an Obama Administration rule that protects wetlands and streams ensures that Donald Trump’s decisions will literally cause the draining of swamps. Now with his budget cuts, we will also be faced with dirtier waters, dirtier air and a less healthy environment."

I wonder how many Republican congressman with districts along the shores of the Great Lakes are going to lose their seats in 2018 over this. And seperately, the Washington Post reported yesterday that the Regime is slashing the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would also "eliminate funding for a variety of smaller programs including external research, coastal management, estuary reserves and ‘coastal resilience,’ which seeks to bolster the ability of coastal areas to withstand major storms and rising seas." This is one of the country's top climate science agencies and the Regime is eager to deliver "steep cuts to research funding and satellite programs."

UPDATE: It's Not Just The Great Lakes, Of Course

This morning Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) explained this catastrophic budget proposal to her Seattle constituents, because Trump's plan envisions a 93% cut to critical efforts to restore Puget Sound.

President Trump is adamant about destroying everything we cherish as a community. Reports of a budget proposal from the administration that would cut 93% of EPA's funding to restore and recover the Sound would devastate our local economy, and ruin one of Washington’s most essential bodies of water.

There are few things more important to the future of our children than our air, water, and human health. This is what the EPA oversees. By slashing this agency, President Trump is putting our children and our planet at great risk. I intend to do everything I can to fight back against the Trump administration’s irresponsible, ill-conceived budget proposals.

Drill, Baby, Drill... In The Great Lakes?

This weekend Blue America hosted a live chat with Michigan progressive Democrat Fred Johnson at Crooks and Liars. And one of the issues in his race people were most worked up over involves drilling for oil in the Great Lakes. Republicans, always eager to please their buddies at Big Oil, are pushing for it. Fred, of course-- like most residents of the beautiful lakeside counties-- opposes it. In response to a question about drilling in Lake Michigan, Fred was crystal clear:

I talk about the windpower potential of the lakeshore with voters all the time. There is some NIMBYism out there, and I am cognizant of the local concerns relative to tourism. However, we have to get serious about this, or Big Oil will definitely come after the Lakes. I'm continually amazed that as a vast body of water is being destroyed by Big Oil there are still those who behave as though the threat from drilling was an issue that needed further study. We must become energy independent. We must start as soon as possible. We must begin the process of transitioning from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources and support the President's efforts to build a "Green" economy.

Drilling in the Great Lakes IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO ACHIEVING ANY OF THOSE AIMS IN THE SHORT OR LONG TERM. Further, suggesting such a thing only serves to validate the extent of Big Oil's influence in government. Enough!!!

Radical right Club for Growth kook Pat Toomey (R-PA) has been advocating drilling in Lake Erie for some time now, something that could endanger the drinking water for roughly 40 million Americans. Even back in 2001, when Toomey was in Congress, he voted against a tremendously popular-- and bipartisan bill, H.R. 2311 to prohibit drilling in the Great Lakes watershed. More recently, when Toomey was campaigning in Erie he was questioned by John Guerriero from the Erie Times-News, he was still talking about how wonderful drilling in the Great Lakes would be:

While Toomey was in Erie on what he called his small-business tour, his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, of Delaware County, released a video online with a Lake Erie theme.

The video focuses on the lake and highlights Toomey's vote in 2001 to allow drilling in the Great Lakes.

The Sestak campaign said Toomey should be reminded how much Erie relies on a tourism economy and the jobs that come with it.

An oil spill similar to BP's crisis in the Gulf of Mexico would contaminate all of the lake, Sestak's campaign said.

Toomey called it a "ridiculous comparison'' because the blown-out BP wellhead is one mile below the water surface, while the deepest part of Lake Erie is 210 feet.

Toomey said he would not categorically and immediately rule out any Great Lakes drilling.

Rep. Joe Sestak, who beat the Establishment Machine and Arlen Specter to win the Democratic Senate nomination opposes Big Oil's calls for allowing drilling in the Great Lakes. Like Fred Johnson in Michigan, Joe Sestak is clear as a bell about drilling in Lake Erie: "Congressman Toomey's willingness to allow drilling in the Great Lakes shows that he does not understand the immense benefits of Lake Erie for the people of Erie County. He would put at risk the keystone of Erie's economy for the benefit of a few corporations and their shareholders. In the event of a catastrophic accident-- like the BP disaster-- countless small businesses would be forced to close, and tens of thousands of jobs would be lost."

Yesterday evening after reading this Sam Stein report at HuffPo, I tweeted this:

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson found himself under the political microscope late last week after it was revealed that he owns up to $315,000 in BP stock while he has defended the oil giant against its critics and called for continued offshore drilling.

The Wisconsin businessman-- who is vying, in a closer-than-expected contest, for Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-Wisc.) seat-- has spent the last few weeks trying to temper criticism of BP in the wake of the Gulf spill. Johnson, whom national Democrats like to refer to as the "forgotten Tea Party candidate," has expressed disappointment with the administration's "assault" on BP. At the same time, he's been a vocal advocate for continued and even accelerated oil and gas exploration, going so far as to express an openness to drilling in the Great Lakes.

"The bottom line is we are an oil-based economy," he told the site WisPolitics in mid-June, when asked about drilling in the Great Lakes. "There's nothing we're gonna do to get off of that for many, many years. I think we have to be realistic and recognize that fact and, you know, I, I think we have to, get the oil where it is, but we have to do it where it is."

Those comments and many others make Johnson among the most pro-drilling pols in a Republican Party filled with drilling proponents. But in offering his support for the practice, Johnson didn't reveal that he has serious financial stakes in the continued success of BP and the greater oil and gas industry.

This is what it means to be a sociopath. It's not illegal... but it makes no sense at all to elect them to public office so they can turn us all into their victims. And, of course, it isn't just Ron Johnson putting this country in danger for his own narrow interests-- and it isn't only Republicans in the Great Lakes states either. Just yesterday, Heather Beaven reminded us that a Florida sociopath, John Mica, brags on his website that "I voted to drill in the Everglades in the 1970’s and I’d do it again today.” Mica is on Big Oil's payroll-- and so are several members of his family. He puts their financial interests ahead of the interests of the country. That's what it means to be a Republican politician in the 21st Century.


UPDATE: Russ Feingold Explains Why He Opposes Drilling In The Great Lakes



This is from a press release Feingold sent out this morning:

Johnson, who gave a speech before the Gulf oil spill in which he said, “Big Oil [is] not evil,” has repeatedly defended the oil industry, including BP, telling the media after the Gulf oil spill, “[T]his is not the time to be beating up on those guys, quite honestly.”

News reports have also detailed Johnson’s support for oil drilling in national wildlife areas and his opposition to more caution before undertaking new oil-drilling projects in light of the worst oil spill disaster in American history. Johnson also opposes the BP compensation fund for victims of the Gulf oil spill.

One month ago, Johnson was asked by the media, "Would you support drilling like in the Great Lakes, for example, if there was oil found there?"

Johnson said, “Yeah. You know, the bottom line is that we are an oil-based economy. There’s nothing we’re going to do to get off of that for many, many years, so I think we have to just be realistic and recognize that fact. And I think we have to get the oil where it is…”

Last week, with ongoing media coverage of the BP oil spill, and after weeks of delaying the financial disclosures required, it was revealed by the media that Johnson has invested as much as $315,000 with BP, $50,001 to $100,000 in Exxon Mobil and $15,001 to $50,000 in Occidental Petroleum Corp.

Wisconsin relies on the Great Lakes for everything from food to jobs and from power to recreation. According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1.6 million Wisconsin residents get their fresh water directly from the Great Lakes. 

On July 12, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported the area of the Gulf affected by the oil sheen is 84,101 square miles – an area nearly the same size as all five Great Lakes combined.

Feingold voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has funded maintenance of Wisconsin’s harbors and canals, restored fish and wildlife habitats, and reduced pollution, including clean water and drinking water revolving loan funds, the Ashland NFWCO Fish Passage Program, Fox River dam infrastructure improvements, the Fox River navigation system’s lock keeper houses, improvements to the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal and harbor, and the Kewaunee and Manitowoc harbor dredging projects.

...The League of Conservation Voters recognizes Feingold as having one of the best lifetime voting records of any current U.S. Senator. The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and National Wildlife Federation have honored him for his efforts to protect water quality and fight for wetlands protections.

The State of Wisconsin honored Feingold for his strong support of State Wildlife Grants and he was awarded the Clean Water Champion Award by the Clean Water Network for his leadership on the Clean Water Restoration Act.