GOP Senate Lemmings Headed For Cliff

 

There was a ton of info in the latest Change Research poll of new and infrequent voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that was released yesterday. "New and infrequent" but this year 84% of them say they are definitely voting. This is going to be the highest turnout election in our lifetimes and Trump is the motivating factor-- mostly antipathy towards him. Biden leads by 49-37% among these voters, who went for Hillary Clinton by 35-30%. Undecided voters are largely negative about both candidates, but they’re much more strongly negative about Trump than Biden. Biden leads among this cohort of voters in all 6 of these swing states-- 50-36% in Arizona, 52-37% in Florida, 58-31% in Michigan, 47-38% in North Carolina, 49-39% in Pennsylvania and 43-41% in Wisconsin. More factoids:

• Biden leads 44-16 among Gary Johnson voters
• Biden leads 42-17 among Jill Stein voters
• Biden leads 47-32 among those who did not vote in 2016
• A plurality of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe every single conspiracy theory and falsehood Change Research asked about, although more voters believe Trump is trying to suppress the vote, and that Russia is interfering, than that Democrats are trying to rig the election
• 5% of these voters would take a vaccine as soon as possible, even if it has not gone through standard safety procedures

And Republicans up and down the ballot are circling the drain with Trump. The latest poll in Arizona how's Mark Kelly ousting GOP incumbent Martha McSally by 10 points 52-42%. The latest poll in Maine has Sara Gideon beating GOP incumbent Susan Collins by 12 points 54-42%. The latest poll of Colorado voters shows them picking Hickenlooper over incumbent Cory Gardner by 10 points, 52-42%. Even in beet red South Carolina the latest polling shows Democratic lobbyist Jaime Harrison tied (48-48%) with Trump-whisperer Lindsey Graham!

Republican senators may know they're marching over the cliff but these lemmings are not breaking ranks with Trump. Eric Lutz wrote yesterday at Vanity Fair that Senate Republicans still seem dead set on doing Trump's dirty work. Especially Wisconsin sociopathic reactionary Ron Johnson, who has already announced his 2022 lame-duckiness.

I doubt there's a more blatant and preposterous hack in the Senate than Ron Johnson. Ginning up a fake investigation of Hunter Biden's moronic adventures in Ukraine, Johnson said, "I would think it would certainly help Donald Trump win reelection." He's been running around telling anyone who will listen that he has an October surprise to tarnish Biden coming out of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee fishing expedition.

Following a vote Wednesday morning, Johnson will expand his panel’s Crossfire Hurricane probe. The committee authorized dozens of subpoenas to be issued to Obama era officials, including Bruce Ohr and Andrew McCabe-- two frequent Trump targets over their role in the Russia investigation that consumed the first two years of his presidency. But another vote, to issue subpoenas in the Burisma probe, was canceled after Mitt Romney slammed that inquiry as a “political exercise” aimed at taking down Biden.

“It’s not the legitimate role of government, for Congress or for taxpayer expense, to be used in an effort to damage political opponents,” Romney said. “I do believe it's very important that the committees of Congress, and ours in particular, not fall into an increasing pattern that we're seeing, which is using taxpayer dollars and the power of Congress to do political work. That's the role of campaigns.”

Romney, the only Republican who voted to convict during Trump’s impeachment trial earlier this year, had previously expressed concerns that Johnson’s Burisma probe was being driven by partisan politics rather than oversight. On Wednesday, he said recent remarks by the committee leader “have only confirmed that perspective.” He was likely referring to comments Johnson made earlier this week during a video conference with Republicans, in which he promised to release a report that would hurt Biden politically. “Stay tuned,” the Wisconsin Republican said, as reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “In about a week we’re going to learn a whole lot more of Vice President Biden’s unfitness for office.”

Of course, there’s been no evidence that Biden did anything wrong in Ukraine, and Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the committee, has railed against Johnson for “knowingly advancing discredited claims that our own Intelligence Community has warned are part of a Russian attack on our democracy.” Nevertheless, Johnson has continued to promise a report by election day November 3.

With his sharp rebuke of the Burisma probe, Romney effectively got the vote to issue subpoenas in the Burisma probe scrapped. But the Utah Senator did vote in favor of dozens of subpoenas in the committee’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russia inquiry, which the president and his allies have claimed was a “witch hunt” by deep state officials who sought to undermine Barack Obama’s successor. Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, identified procedural missteps by federal law enforcement in the early days of the investigation, but found no evidence of political bias. Still, Attorney General William Barr and other Trump allies have been investigating their boss’s investigators, particularly since Biden, the vice president under Obama, became the Democratic nominee. Romney expressed support for a narrow inquiry by Johnson’s committee into the errors outlined by Horowitz, as long as it “does not fall in the realm of rank political undertaking.” But, in the hands of a loyalist like Johnson, whose stated mission is to damage Biden and help Trump, it’s hard to imagine such a probe being anything but that.

Yesterday afternoon, Johnson announced he has COVID-19 and is going into quarantine. Pray that the October surprise isn't the one he was plotting. Samantha Bee has a November surprise to discuss:

Trump's Super-Spreader Event-- Bringing The Hate To Freeland, Michigan

RealClearPolitics' current Michigan polling average shows Trump down by 4.2%-- but the poll includes a made up poll by Republican Party disinformation group, Trafalgar (that has Trump up by 2 points, the only poll out of dozens this year showing Trump winning in Michigan. Even Rasmussen, also a Republican polling firm, showed Trump down by 8 points-- 51% to 43% on Thursday. Without cheating, Michigan is unlikely to be in Trump's column in November.

Detroit News poll this week

On Thursday, Michigan reported 983 new COVID cases, bringing the state's total to 120,846, which translates to 12,101 cases per million Michiganders, significantly below the national average of 19,904 cases per million residents. 6,894 Michiganders have died of COVID, 690 deaths per million residents. Trump's event Thursday is sure to result in hundreds of more cases in a state that has been successfully flattening the curve but not allowing events like the one Trump just hosted.

In Freeland, about 5,000 people came out to bask in the ugly divisiveness and hatred Trump employs at his rallies. No social distancing no masks. The super-low-IQ crowd seemed happy with Trump's excuses for the revelations in Woodward's book that he lied about the pandemics danger. Excuse #1: Bob Woodward is a "whack job." Trumpist goons tracked down local NY Times reporter Kathy Gray and kicked her out for reporting on Twitter that the crowd was basically maskless.

Reporting on Trump's latest super-spreader event for the Detroit News, Craig Mauger wrote that "Trump took credit for rescuing an already revived auto industry and told his supporters their votes 'will save America' as he roared back into Michigan for his first campaign rally in the state since the COVID-19 pandemic hit. 'After the last administration nearly killed the U.S. auto industry, I saved the U.S. auto industry,' said Trump, making a questionable claim as he took direct aim at Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden. After winning Michigan by 10,704 votes in 2016, the Republican president is hoping for a repeat on Nov. 3. Much of his speech Thursday night outside of an airport hangar in Freeland focused on what he considered his accomplishments related to the state and criticisms of Democratic leaders in office here... 'No president has done for Michigan what President Trump has done for Michigan,' said Trump at one point, before adding, 'I am going to remember Michigan.'"

Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, told CNN he was "pretty puzzled" and "rather disheartened" by Trump’s crowded campaign rally in Michigan-- at which few of the several thousand attendees could be seen wearing face masks and virtually none appeared to be practicing social distancing.

After Trump's rally, Fauci's boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins told Sanji Gupta and Anderson Cooper: "How did we get here? Imagine you were an alien who landed on planet Earth, and you saw that our planet was afflicted by an infectious disease and that masks were an effective way to prevent the spread. And yet, when you went around, you saw some people not wearing them and some people wearing them. And you tried to figure out why, and it turned out it was their political party. And you would scratch your head and think, 'This is just not a planet that has much promise for the future, if something that is so straightforward can somehow get twisted into decision-making that really makes no sense.' As a scientist I'm pretty puzzled and rather disheartened."

I've been saying since April that it's going to take a million deaths before the Trump crowd-- personifications of the word "idiot"-- can be persuaded to take the pandemic seriously. It's a shame that it won't just be a million Trumpists who die, but normal people as well. I may have been wrong; it could take 2 million. Yesterday Time Magazine reported that "Among the world’s wealthy nations, only the U.S. has an outbreak that continues to spin out of control. Of the 10 worst-hit countries, the U.S. has the seventh-highest number of deaths per 100,000 population; the other nine countries in the top 10 have an average per capita GDP of $10,195, compared to $65,281 for the U.S. Some countries, like New Zealand, have even come close to eradicating COVID-19 entirely. Vietnam, where officials implemented particularly intense lockdown measures, didn’t record a single virus-related death until July 31."

At this point, we can start to see why the U.S. foundered: a failure of leadership at many levels and across parties; a distrust of scientists, the media and expertise in general; and deeply ingrained cultural attitudes about individuality and how we value human lives have all combined to result in a horrifically inadequate pandemic response. COVID-19 has weakened the U.S. and exposed the systemic fractures in the country, and the gulf between what this nation promises its citizens and what it actually delivers.

Although America’s problems were widespread, they start at the top. A complete catalog of President Donald Trump’s failures to address the pandemic will be fodder for history books. There were weeks wasted early on stubbornly clinging to a fantastical belief that the virus would simply “disappear”; testing and contact tracing programs were inadequate; states were encouraged to reopen ahead of his own Administration’s guidelines; and statistics were repeatedly cherry-picked to make the U.S. situation look far better than it was, while undermining scientists who said otherwise. “I wanted to always play it down,” Trump told the journalist Bob Woodward on March 19 in a newly revealed conversation. “I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

Common-sense solutions like face masks were undercut or ignored. Research shows that wearing a facial covering significantly reduces the spread of COVID-19, and a pre-existing culture of mask wearing in East Asia is often cited as one reason countries in that region were able to control their outbreaks. In the U.S., Trump did not wear a mask in public until July 11, more than three months after the CDC recommended facial coverings, transforming what ought to have been a scientific issue into a partisan one. A Pew Research Center survey published on June 25 found that 63% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said masks should always be worn in public, compared with 29% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

...Americans today tend to value the individual over the collective. A 2011 Pew survey found that 58% of Americans said “freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state” is more important than the state guaranteeing “nobody is in need.” It’s easy to view that trait as a root cause of the country’s struggles with COVID-19; a pandemic requires people to make temporary sacrifices for the benefit of the group, whether it’s wearing a mask or skipping a visit to their local bar.

Americans have banded together in times of crisis before, but we need to be led there. “We take our cues from leaders,” says Dr. David Rosner, a professor at Columbia University. Trump and other leaders on the right, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Gov. Tate Reeves of Mississippi, respectively, have disparaged public-health officials, criticizing their calls for shutting down businesses and other drastic but necessary measures. Many public-health experts, meanwhile, are concerned that the White House is pressuring agencies like the Food and Drug Administration to approve treatments such as convalescent plasma despite a lack of supportive data. Governors, left largely on their own, have been a mixed bag, and even those who’ve been praised, like New York’s Andrew Cuomo, could likely have taken more aggressive action to protect public health.

Absent adequate leadership, it’s been up to everyday Americans to band together in the fight against COVID-19. To some extent, that’s been happening-- doctors, nurses, bus drivers and other essential workers have been rightfully celebrated as heroes, and many have paid a price for their bravery. But at least some Americans still refuse to take such a simple step as wearing a mask.

Why? Because we’re also in the midst of an epistemic crisis. Republicans and Democrats today don’t just disagree on issues; they disagree on the basic truths that structure their respective realities. Half the country gets its news from places that parrot whatever the Administration says, true or not; half does not. This politicization manifests in myriad ways, but the most vital is this: in early June (at which point more than 100,000 Americans had already died of COVID-19), fewer than half of Republican voters polled said the outbreak was a major threat to the health of the U.S. population as a whole. Throughout July and August, the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force was sending private messages to states about the severity of the outbreak, while President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence publicly stated that everything was under control.

Some incredulity about the virus and public-health recommendations is understandable given the reality that scientific understanding of the newly emergent virus is evolving in real time. The ever shifting advice from health officials doesn’t instill public confidence, especially in those already primed to be skeptical of experts. “Because this is a new infectious disease, a new virus, we don’t have all the answers scientifically,” says Colleen Barry, chair of the department of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “I think that creates an environment that could potentially erode trust even further over time.” But the trust fractures on partisan lines. While 43% of Democrats told Pew in 2019 that they had a “great deal” of trust in scientists, only 27% of Republicans said the same.

Truly worrying are the numbers of Americans who already say they are hesitant to receive an eventual COVID-19 vaccination. Mass vaccination will work only with enough buy-in from the public; the damage the President and others are doing to Americans’ trust in science could have significant consequences for the country’s ability to get past this pandemic.

There’s another disturbing undercurrent to Americans’ attitude toward the pandemic thus far: a seeming willingness to accept mass death. As a nation we may have become dull to horrors that come our way as news, from gun violence to the seemingly never-ending incidents of police brutality to the water crises in Flint, Mich., and elsewhere. Americans seem to have already been inured to the idea that other Americans will die regularly, when they do not need to.

It is difficult to quantify apathy. But what else could explain that nearly half a year in, we still haven’t figured out how to equip the frontline workers who, in trying to save the lives of others, are putting their own lives at risk? What else could explain why 66% of Americans-- roughly 217.5 million people-- still aren’t always wearing masks in public?

Meanwhile, back in Freeland, some Democratic smart ass-- Republican dumb ass?-- played an old Credence Clearwater Revival anthem to rev up the maskless crowd of dummies, "Fortunate Song," a stinging condemnation of rich draft dodgers like Trump, written in 1969, when Trump was dodging the draft.

Some folks are born, made to wave the flag
Ooh, their red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the Chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord

It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me
It ain't me

I ain't no fortunate one, no
Some folks are born, silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, y'all
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yeah

It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son, no, no
It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one, no

Yeah, yeah
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask 'em, "How much…

We All Have All The Information We Need To Decide Who To Not Vote For In November

In a "sermon" a couple of years ago, God Has Nothing to Do With Trump Being President, John Pavlovitz reached out directly to evangelicals to remind them that spiritualizing the Trump presidency is "sinful, blasphemous, lousy evangelism and just plain asinine. The hypocrisy on display is historic: after spending the past 8 years straining to find infinitesimal specks in Barack Obama’s eye that they could condemn as deal breakers-- Evangelicals are now perfectly fine with Trump’s rotted forest of Redwoods. In fact, in the most dizzying display of theological spin doctoring, it is now precisely his ever-growing trail of personal toxic discharge that supposedly proves evidence of God’s hand in it all. So Trump’s multiple marriages, his porn star affairs, his mountain of sexual assault claims, his verbal obscenities, his disregard for rule of law, his compulsive lying, his clear racism, his unrelenting attacks on marginalized communities (things these Christians would have figuratively and almost literally crucified Obama for) are now unmistakable signs that God is using this President. This is nonsense of Biblical proportions; to try and draw some line between Jesus of Nazareth and Donald of New York, is about as farcical as you can get without actually spontaneously combusting from the cognitive dissonance... We really should stop pretending God is responsible for this fast food dumpster fire, when it’s clear whose hand is in it all. This reality is the rotten fruit of misogyny, racism, Nationalism, fear, xenophobia, and bigotry-- all released by people who want God to consent to it all so they don’t have to deal with their own culpability or face their own repentance."

Fast forward to... tomorrow. Michael Cohen's book will be officially out and available... a longer and more detailed and less religiously-oriented version of Pavlovitz's 2018 sermon: Disloyal: A Memoir. I have a feeling this may be the most talked about-- if not read-- book out of the dozens of Trump exposés by people once close to him that have come out in the last 4 years. Cohen makes the case that Trump is a criminal, a mentally ill sex psycho and an obsessed racist.

Washington Post reporters Ashley Parker and Rosalind Helderman got their hands on an advance copy and wrote up a preview over the weekend, noting that Cohen "Trump’s longtime lawyer and personal fixer... alleges in a new book that Trump made 'overt and covert attempts to get Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.' ... Cohen lays out an alarming portrait of the constellation of characters orbiting around Trump, likening the arrangement to the mafia and calling himself 'one of Trump’s bad guys.' He describes the president, meanwhile, as 'a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, a con man.' The memoir also describes episodes of Trump’s alleged racism and his 'hatred and contempt' of his predecessor, Barack Obama, the nation’s only African American president." I hate the way Parker and Helderman use the world "alleged" to describe characteristics that have been proven beyond any reasonable double over and over and over for decades and decades and decades.

On Russia, Cohen writes that the cause behind Trump’s admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is simpler than many of his critics assume. Above all, he writes, Trump loves money-- and he wrongly identified Putin as “the richest man in the world by a multiple.”

Trump loved Putin, Cohen wrote, because the Russian leader had the ability “to take over an entire nation and run it like it was his personal company-- like the Trump Organization, in fact.”

Cohen also reveals new alleged details about the convoluted effort behind a National Enquirer report smearing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cohen says that Trump signed off on the baseless report to damage Cruz, one of his rivals in the 2016 Republican primary.

“It’s not real, right?” Trump allegedly asked after being shown a photograph, which the magazine would claim depicted Cruz’s father with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

“Looks real to me!” Cohen responded, according to the book, prompting Trump to laugh as he demanded that the story be run on the tabloid’s front page.

“To say it would be a low blow would be an insult to low blows; can you think of another politician, ever, who would stoop this low?” Cohen writes.

...According to Cohen, Trump’s sycophantic praise of the Russian leader during the 2016 campaign began as a way to suck up and ensure access to the oligarch’s money after he lost the election. But he claims Trump came to understand that Putin’s hatred of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, dating to her support for the 2011 protest movement in Russia, could also help Trump amass more power in the United States.

“What appeared to be collusion was really a confluence of shared interests in harming Hillary Clinton in any way possible, up to and including interfering in the American election-- a subject that caused Trump precisely zero unease,” Cohen writes.

Cohen’s book, however, does not reveal much in the way of new details surrounding the investigations by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and others into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

...Cohen asserts that another reason that Trump consistently praised Putin was to fulfill his long-held desire to slap his name on a proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow.

Cohen says the Trump Tower plans called for a 120-story building in Red Square, including 30 floors devoted to a five-star hotel with an Ivanka Trump-branded spa and Trump restaurants, and 230 high-end condominiums for Russian oligarchs and leaders.

The plan, Cohen adds, was to give the penthouse apartment to the Russian president for free, in part “as a way to suck up to Putin.”

“The whole idea of patriotism and treason became irrelevant in his mind,” Cohen writes. “Trump was using the campaign to make money for himself: of course he was.”

Trump would later publicly insist that he had no business dealings with Russia. But Cohen writes extensively of his own efforts beginning in the fall of 2015-- several months after Trump had declared his candidacy-- to make the Moscow project a reality.

The project fell to Cohen, he writes, because Trump’s children all disliked Felix Sater, the colorful Russian American developer who served as the Trump Organization’s liaison with Russians interested in the project.

Nevertheless, Cohen says the whole family was aware of the project, even as candidate Trump publicly said he had no ties to Russia. Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, who is now a senior White House adviser, even selected the proposed tower’s high-end finishes, Cohen writes.

Ivanka and her lawyers have previously described her involvement in the Russia project as minimal, noting that she never visited the prospective site.

Cohen also describes in detail the partnership between Trump and David Pecker, the chief executive of National Enquirer parent company American Media and a longtime Trump friend, which included Pecker allegedly sharing the Cruz attack with Trump ahead of publication.

While many of Trump’s critics would obsess over the possibility of Russian interference, Cohen writes, it was a purposeful “disinformation campaign” run by American citizens such as Pecker that was “by far the more insidious and dangerous development of the last cycle-- and the most threatening for 2020.”

Cohen notes that the grocery-store tabloid targeted each of Trump’s 2016 primary opponents in turn. He includes a document in the book, for instance, purporting to lay out the magazine’s plan to take down Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). [I hope it was all about Rubio's period as a gay prostitute.]

The National Enquirer came through for Trump again later in 2016, agreeing to pay former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal, who claimed she had an affair with Trump, for her life story and then never running the story. Trump agreed to repay Pecker for the $150,000 fee but never did, Cohen writes.

In the case of Daniels, Cohen writes that after Trump agreed to pay her $130,000 for her silence, he strategized with Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg on how she could be paid without attracting notice.

Weisselberg suggested finding a Trump friend to put up the money, in the guise of paying for a membership to a Trump golf course or the club Mar-a-Lago, according to the book. When Cohen countered that perhaps Weisselberg should lay out the money himself, “Weisselberg went white as a sheet-- like he’d seen a ghost,” he writes.

Ultimately, Cohen made the hush payment himself, taking out a personal home equity loan to come up with the cash, all the while assuming Trump would probably fail to repay him as agreed.

“Stuck with the tab for Trump’s sex romp in a hotel room in Utah a decade ago,” Cohen writes. “This was the job I loved?”

Ultimately, however, Trump did repay Cohen-- agreeing to reimburse him in $35,000 monthly installments after he had entered the White House as president, hiding the payments as fees for legal services and naming Cohen his personal attorney. Cohen asserts that Trump would get a tax break and legal services along with the money-- meaning he would actually come out financially ahead for paying off the adult-film star.

The Trump Organization did not immediately respond for comment Saturday.

In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Moscow project, as well as to violating campaign finance laws by paying Daniels to remain silent. Cohen told the court that he had been directed to make the payment to Daniels-- and later reimbursed for the money-- by Trump. He also pleaded guilty to tax evasion and lying to a financial institution, crimes that were unrelated to his work for Trump.

He was sentenced to three years in prison, which he had been serving at a federal facility in Otisville, N.Y., until he was allowed to leave prison and serve his sentence at home because of the coronavirus pandemic. Before he entered prison, he delivered dramatic public testimony to Congress, in which he apologized for his past lies and called Trump a “racist,” “a con man” and “a cheat.” Republicans mocked his self-professed turn to honesty, noting that he had previously defended Trump with similar gusto.

Beyond Russia’s role in the 2016 elections and the Daniels payment, Cohen seeds the rest of his book with snippets of gossip from his time in Trump’s orbit-- some of it new, some of it well-known and much of it familiar.

He describes Trump insulting and dismissing some of his children, including Donald Trump Jr., his eldest son, and Tiffany, his youngest daughter.

Cohen writes that during the 2016 campaign, Trump was dismissive of minorities, describing them as “not my people.” “I will never get the Hispanic vote,” Cohen recounts Trump claiming. “Like the blacks, they’re too stupid to vote for Trump.”

Cohen describes Trump’s obsessive hatred of Obama, including claiming that the only reason the former president got into Columbia University and Harvard Law School was because of “fucking affirmative action.” He also recounts Trump’s “low opinion of all black folks.” claiming that Trump once said while ranting about Obama, “Tell me one country run by a black person that isn’t a shithole. They are all complete fucking toilets.”

After South African President Nelson Mandela died in 2013, Trump said he did not think Mandela “was a real leader-- not the kind he respected,” Cohen writes.

Instead, Cohen writes that Trump praised the country’s apartheid-era White rule, saying: “Mandela fucked the whole country up. Now it’s a shithole. Fuck Mandela. He was no leader.”

Cohen writes that before winning the presidency, Trump held a meeting at Trump Tower with prominent evangelical leaders, where they laid their hands on him in prayer. Afterward, Trump allegedly said: “Can you believe that bullshit? Can you believe people believe that bullshit?”

“The cosmic joke was that Trump convinced a vast swathe of working-class white folks in the Midwest that he cared about their well-being,” Cohen writes. “The truth was that he couldn’t care less.”

Cohen also depicts Trump as being crude toward women, including inadvertently commenting on Cohen’s then-15-year-old daughter as she finished up a tennis lesson: “Look at that piece of ass,” Trump said, according to Cohen. “I would love some of that.”

Cohen details a tawdry 2013 visit to a Las Vegas club, the Act, with Trump and Aras and Emin Agalarov-- a Russian father-and-son oligarch duo. Cohen asserts that the group watched a debauched strip show that included one performer who simulated urinating on another performer, who pretended to drink it.

Trump’s reaction to the show, Cohen writes, was “disbelief and delight.”

Cohen’s book ends with something of a plea-- though one that requires the reader to trust Cohen’s account of his time in the Trump orbit.

“You now have all the information you need to decide for yourself in November,” Cohen concludes.

52 Senate Republicans Are Both Political Cowards And Willing To Put Their Dying Party Over The Country And The People

-by Chip Proser

The 3 Senate Democrats-- Doug Jones (AL), Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)-- who seemed up-in-the-air about the impeachment vote, all voted "guilty," as did Republican Mitt Romney (UT). Why didn't more Republicans do what they knew was right? Just going by what they've said publicly-- certainly Susan Collins (ME), Lamar Alexander (TN), Ben Sasse (NE), Rob Portman (OH) and Lisa (AK)-- we know they knew full well what Trump is. I assume way more than 20 of the Republicans know. Was it just cowardice?

Pramila Jayapal isn't a senator yet, but she's the well-respected congresswoman from Seattle, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "Instead of showing courage," she told her constituents yesterday, "all but one Republican senator today exemplified cowardice. In putting party and politics over country and Constitution, Republicans drove a stake in the heart of our democracy. The case for convicting and removing President Trump was overwhelming and irrefutable: President Trump endangered the sanctity of our elections by inviting foreign interference in our most sacred democratic institution. He betrayed our national security, violated the sacred trust of the American people, and threatened the very future of our democracy. At every turn, the President and his Administration obstructed the House-- refusing to turn over even a single document or provide even a single witness. In spite of this unprecedented obstruction, the House did its job and Donald Trump will forever be an impeached president. Since the House impeached President Trump, more and more damning information about the President’s abuse of power has come to light. Instead of pursuing the full truth, Senate Republicans eagerly enlisted themselves to be President Trump’s co-conspirators-- covering up the President’s misconduct without even caring to find out the extent of his misconduct. It is a disgrace that Mitch McConnell refused to give the American people what they deserve and what the Constitution demands: a fair trial with witnesses and impartial justice. President Trump will be held accountable one way or another-- whether through the courts or the ballot box-- and the American people and history will not forget the Republicans’ cowardice."

Sherrod Brown of Ohio, on the other hand, is a senator. He penned an OpEd for the NY Times yesterday, In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out Of Fear. He said that in the Senate "fear does the business." He asked his readers to "Think back to the fall of 2002, just a few weeks before that year’s crucial midterm elections, when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was up for a vote. A year after the 9/11 attacks, hundreds of members of the House and the Senate were about to face the voters of a country still traumatized by terrorism. Senator Patty Murray, a thoughtful Democrat from Washington State, still remembers 'the fear that dominated the Senate leading up to the Iraq war. You could feel it then,' she told me, 'and you can feel that fear now'-- chiefly among Senate Republicans."

For those of us who, from the start, questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war, our sense of isolation surely wasn’t much different from the loneliness felt in the 1950s by Senator Herbert Lehman of New York, who confronted Joe McCarthy’s demagogy only to be abandoned by so many of his colleagues. Nor was it so different from what Senator George McGovern must have felt when he announced his early opposition to the Vietnam War and was then labeled a traitor by many inside and outside of Congress.

History has indeed taught us that when it comes to the instincts that drive us, fear has no rival. As the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff, has noted, Robert Kennedy spoke of how “moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle.”

Playing on that fear, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sought a quick impeachment trial for President Trump with as little attention to it as possible. Reporters, who usually roam the Capitol freely, have been cordoned off like cattle in select areas. Mr. McConnell ordered limited camera views in the Senate chamber so only presenters-- not absent senators-- could be spotted.

And barely a peep from Republican lawmakers.

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

Fear has a way of bending us.

Late in the evening on day four of the trial I saw it, just 10 feet across the aisle from my seat at Desk 88, when Mr. Schiff told the Senate: “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that Republican senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’” The response from Republicans was immediate and furious. Several groaned and protested and muttered, “Not true.” But pike or no pike, Mr. Schiff had clearly struck a nerve. (In the words of Lizzo: truth hurts.)

Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.”

For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all-- that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:

“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”

“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”

“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”

My colleagues know they all just might. There’s an old Russian proverb: The tallest blade of grass is the first cut by the scythe. In private, many of my colleagues agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out.

So watching the mental contortions they perform to justify their votes is painful to behold: They claim that calling witnesses would have meant a never-ending trial. They tell us they’ve made up their minds, so why would we need new evidence? They say to convict this president now would lead to the impeachment of every future president-- as if every president will try to sell our national security to the highest bidder.

I have asked some of them, “If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?” Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks.

They stop short of explicitly saying that they are afraid. We all want to think that we always stand up for right and fight against wrong. But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause-- those tax cuts-- but often it’s a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured.

As Senator Murray said on the Senate floor in 2002, “We can act out of fear” or “we can stick to our principles.” Unfortunately, in this Senate, fear has had its way. In November, the American people will have theirs.

I've been talking with former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson for about a year and a few weeks ago we sat down for a relaxing dinner. She's running for a Georgia U.S. Senate seat that's currently held by a total 100% Trump enabler, David Perdue. Her campaign motto is all about gumption but as we were getting to know each other she wrote a guest post for this blog, Crippling Political Fear. Back in July, she wrote that "It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles. One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think."

She was admiring The Squad because they are "fearless about their beliefs. They refuse to be bullied, and that is dangerous to the Republican playbook of shaming scared Democrats into milk toast, mealy-mouthed, baby-splitting positions that are equivocal and stand for nothing. American voters revile those who won’t tell the people what they think. Even if you don’t support the policies-- or certainly some of the statements-- of The Squad, you can’t deny that you appreciate that they unabashedly tell the world what they think."

A classic example of this crippling Democratic political plague of fear is 2014 Democratic Senate candidate Alison Grimes, who refused to say whether she voted for the leader of her party, the two-term first black president, Barack Obama. And, the legion of Democratic candidates that year who refused to say they supported the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because the polling showed it was unpopular. Did we think any voter believed that a Democrat running for federal office didn’t fundamentally support the notion of providing healthcare coverage for millions of previously uninsured constituents? Our citizens could have used a little leadership from Democratic candidates during that cycle. Our president would have benefitted from the leadership of those Democratic candidates because fear begets disrespect and that disrespect spilled throughout the party and weakened Obama as its leader. Maybe if we had all spoken out and pushed back against the Republican political propaganda machine, we would not have allowed the bell-curve to slide so far right.

The nation has had its share of politically lukewarm Democratic candidates-- structured by the national party for perceived winnability not leadership. Even if they had a tagline of-- “Fighting for you”-- no one believed it.  How could they if they didn’t fight for the ACA or weren’t willing to admit America has a gun violence problem?

...When Democratic leaders believe that beginning impeachment proceedings is about polls or election results, they, too, are giving in to fear: they are afraid that following the Constitutional checks and balances and leading will cost them their job, so they mitigate and delay. Unfortunately, their job is to lead by upholding the Constitution, not to get re-elected.

Impeachment is not about undoing the last election or impacting the next. It certainly is not about the polls as the Founding Framers made perfectly clear in Federalist Paper, No. 66. It is about stopping a president who would abuse and misuse the power of the presidency so that not another day passes-- not another circumstance presents itself-- where a president, unfit for duty because of the commission of High Crimes or Misdemeanors (defined as misdeeds) can inflict his/her poor judgment on the office, the country, or the people. Oh, if only impeachment proceedings had been instituted sooner, the damage that might have been averted.

Instead, Democrats are afraid of what the Republicans will say about it-- what the bullies will do to us on the way home. So, we cut through the alley to avoid the fight and controversy. We detour our duty of leadership and good government. Commencing impeachment proceedings is about employing the constitutional duty that our elected leaders were sworn to do-- not about mitigating to the finish line and hoping no one notices that we wouldn’t use the tools entrusted to us to keep the American system on the rails. All Democrats, and many Independents and Republicans, understand that Donald Trump has committed High Crimes or Misdemeanors, so if this conduct doesn’t warrant the commencement of impeachment proceedings, then what would? We must seriously consider the example of tolerance for harmful conduct at the highest levels of our government we are creating.

The key to winning is that you don’t aim to win, you aim to lead. If you lead, the winning takes care of itself-- or at least you move the needle so profoundly you set up the next winner, as did Stacey Abrams in Georgia with her heroic non-loss in Georgia. She was who she was and voters responded to that.

That’s not fear, that’s winning.

Retired Admiral Mike Franken, one of the candidates running for the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Trump enabler Joni Ernst (R-IA) told us today that "In my previous line of work, if you make a mistake in judgment, the shortcoming is documented. I'm joining my friend Senator Joe Manchin in calling for a vote on censuring Donald Trump for conduct unbefitting the office of the President of the United States. Let's see if Joni Ernst remembers telling Jake Tapper about the president's mistake in using his office's influence to investigate Joe Biden in Ukraine and whether she remembers her military training to document and censure poor or misguided performance. This is an opportunity to separate those who understand the importance of leadership in crisis from those who fall for political expediency."

OK, so now let's close out the night and, in some respects, the week, with some commentary from the inimitable Samantha Bee. She was really rockin' this week:

Democrats Trying To Second-Guess Electability Should Remember That Swing Voters Won't Go For A Democratic Version Of Jeb Bush

The B-Team

Last Sunday, Jeff Greenfield, writing for Politico noted that if the Democrats nominate Status Quo Joe, they may be safe, but also sorry. Like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush were in 2016, Biden "doesn’t inspire big rallies, isn’t the face of a movement, but is just, you know, expected to win." The Republican rejected that'd the Democrats embraced it. You know who won. Greenfield: "if history shows anything, the Democrats have a problem... What happens when a party nominates a candidate who triumphs because of familiarity, or because 'it’s her turn,' or because he’s steadily ascended the party ranks despite no defining passion or cause? The track record of these 'default' nominees, at least in modern political history, is bleak."

Hillary Clinton is the latest and, for the Democrats, still most painful example. The combination of her experience, her family ties and the sense that (in the words of a proposed campaign slogan) it was “her turn” drove every potentially serious rival out of the 2016 race. Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly strong primary challenge was a foreshadowing of her vulnerabilities, even if the signal was mostly dismissed until about 9 p.m. on election night in November.

Four years before Hillary Clinton was defeated, the Republicans trotted out the reliable, central-casting Mitt Romney to lose to President Barack Obama, a campaign that seemed to rhyme with the time the Dems unenthusiastically fell in line for John Kerry against President George W. Bush in 2004. Keep going back, and you see candidates like these over and over, marching under flags of pale pastel, all going down to defeat in November: Al Gore, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, Gerald Ford, Hubert Humphrey and even Richard Nixon, in his first run, in 1960.

Not every election has a default candidate: The race between Obama and John McCain, for example, pitted a “maverick” Republican against an inspirational Democratic newcomer. But most do, and they tend to lose to rivals who can claim novelty or outsiderhood: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Obama, Donald Trump. (During the 2016 campaign, Trump knocked his own party’s default candidate, Jeb Bush, out of the primaries.)

The seemingly obvious implication is that a candidate who wins without enthusiasm is doomed, that a candidate who inspires is a better electoral bet than one who has simply endured. Find a candidate who can trigger turnout among the most reliable Democratic voters, the argument goes, and the party will have a much better chance than trying to beckon back disaffected Democrats with a safe, familiar face who may not be magnetic but who will not repel. That’s what Sanders means when he talks of a political “revolution” that will sweep his ambitious economic program into law. That’s what Elizabeth Warren argues when she inveighs against cautious incrementalism. And didn’t the past two Democrats (as well as the current president) take the White House by challenging and defeating the safer, more familiar choices?

Greenfield should have quit while he was ahead. Being who he is, he then said Biden might be an under appreciated default candidate who could actually win-- like Harry Truman did in 1948. Harry Truman did win-- but not because he was remotely like Status Quo Joe, an absurd comparison. Greenfield concluded-- as he often does-- on the fence: "It’s fair to question the political appeal of a default nominee, but it is also reasonable to ask whether a candidate steeped in familiarity might be able to beckon voters who are unsettled by a clarion call to ideological battle, however mild the enthusiasm behind that vote-- particularly if the familiar candidate offers a respite from the endless turmoil triggered almost daily by an emotionally unmoored incumbent. A vote accompanied by a shrug counts just as much as vote accompanied by a clenched fist. Maybe there’s even a new slogan for Biden to play off that series of TV commercials: 'Just OK is a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got right now.'"

Over the weekend, the right-wing NY Post giving a little proud of how Trump would attack Biden if Biden gets the nomination, ran a Peter Schweizer piece How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections. Schweizer, a Breitbart editor and New York Times best-selling author, wrote an attack book largely about Biden, Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite. In the book, Biden "emerges as the king of the sweetheart deal, with no less than five family members benefiting from his largesse, favorable access and powerful position for commercial gain. In Biden’s case, these deals include foreign partners and, in some cases, even U.S. taxpayer dollars. The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment involves no less than five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie." It's mostly true... but still not as bad as the Trump family. But is this what we want the 2020 election to be about-- who has the less corrupt family?





Status Quo Joe and Mayo Pete are battlting desperately for the centrist/conservative lane among Iowa Democrats. Matt Viser and Chelsea Janes, reporting for the Washington Post put it like this: "Amid a high-voltage fight between the presidential campaign’s leading liberals, more-moderate [NOTE: The Post uses the word "moderate" to describe conservatives; it's a long-standing problem with the establishment elite] candidates are redoubling their efforts here, pouring time and resources into the state while tweaking their closing arguments to emphasize party unity and their electability." Biden is spending his time, though trying to smear Bernie for doctoring an undoctored video that shows Biden trying to cut Social Security and Medicare in the name Austerity, something he has favored for his entire career but is afraid of in a Democratic primary-- where an Austerity agenda is extremely unpopular.

The media agrees that Biden is lying about the video and even The Postpublished Viser's observation that "The video does not appear doctored" and also quotes Bernie's campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, noting that Biden "is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions," "it" being cutting Social Security benefits. Example:





Biden admits he tried freezing Social Security and Medicare 4 times and is trying it again. Does he claim Bernie doctored this too? Did Bernie sneak into the Congressional Record and doctored that? Because Biden is in the Congressional Record advocating cuts to social programs including Medicare and Social Security, just like the Republicans do. Biden defenders who see this video say "but he only wants to freeze Social Security, not cut it." First of all, he has talked about cutting benefits over and over-- like increasing the age of retirement. Second of all, let's look at what Biden means by freezing Social Security. It's not about the temperature; it's about the guaranteed cost of living increase that is meant-- by progressives, not by conservatives like Biden-- to keep the buying power of Social Security from being destroyed by inflation. Without the cost of living allocations, which are so detested by conservatives and always something they want to cut, many seniors would soon be starving and homeless.

As Ryan Grim correctly asserted last week in The Intercept, Biden has advocated cutting Social Security for 40 years. Now he's lying about it to confuse seniors, his only base of support. "As early as 1984," wrote Grim, "and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted Biden’s record on Social Security in prosecuting the case that Biden isn’t the most electable candidate."

[A]fter a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.

“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)

...Biden himself, at least on his campaign website, now supports making Social Security more generous, not less. But that’s at odds with decades of his own advocacy, a record that could become a major political liability among voters concerned Biden will finally get his wish to trim back Social Security checks. Because about half of black seniors on Social Security rely on it as their primary means of support, any trimming of the program hits those beneficiaries particularly hard.

...With this year’s presidential contest being fought over the terrain of electability, Biden’s 35-plus-year effort to cut Social Security, arguably the most popular government program in existence, is potentially a major liability among older voters-- and hypocrisy has never held Trump back from making an effective political attack. Biden’s historical position also stands in stark contrast to Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom support increasing benefits and have offered ways to make the program solvent indefinitely.

...Biden's fixation on cutting Social Security dates back to the Reagan era. One of Ronald Reagan’s first major moves as president was to implement a mammoth tax cut, tilted toward the wealthy, and to increase defense spending. Biden, a Delaware senator at the time, supported both moves. The heightened spending and reduced revenue focused public attention on the debt and deficit, giving fuel to a push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

In the midst of that debate, Biden teamed up with Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to call for a freeze on federal spending, and insisted on including Social Security in that freeze, even as the Reagan administration fought to protect the program from cuts. It was part of the Democratic approach at the time not just to match Republicans, but to get to their right at times as well, as Biden also did on criminal justice policy.

“So, when those of my friends in the Democratic and Republican Party say to me, ‘How do you expect me to vote for your proposal? Does it not freeze Social Security COLAs for one year? Are we not saying there will be no cost-of-living increases for one year?’ The answer to that is ‘Yes, that is what I am saying,’” Biden said in a Senate floor speech in April 1984, referring to the adjustment that millions of seniors look for every year.

Biden was facing reelection to the Senate in 1984, which was shaping up to be a heavily Republican cycle, and continued returning to the issue of Social Security.

His plan with Grassley was backed, the New York Times reported in May 1984, by a bevy of business trade groups, “including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Business Executives for National Security and the National Association of Manufacturers.”

The Biden-Grassley plan was ultimately rejected, but Biden never wavered on it, arguing in 1988 that had he been able to cut Social Security, he’d have been able to save other social programs and force Republicans to cut defense spending.

...In November 1995, he again reminded the public of his deficit hawkery. “I am a Democrat that voted for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have introduced on four occasions-- four occasions-- entire plans to balance a budget,” he said on the Senate floor. “I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything.”

“When I introduced my budget freeze proposal years ago, the liberals of my party said, ‘It’s an awful thing you are doing, Joe. All the programs we care about, you are freezing them-- money for the blind, the disabled, education and so on,’” Biden continued. “My argument then is one I make now, which is the strongest, most compelling reason to be for this amendment-- or an amendment-- that if we do not do that, all the things I care most about are going to be gone-- gone.”

He was wrong about that and you can usually count on him to be wrong about everything. What he will surely do if he gets into the White House is renew his jihad against the social safety net and team up with the Republicans and other conservative Democrats to cut Social Security and Medicare.

A few days ago, in Iowa, even Elizabeth Warren noted that Biden is a liar in this Social Security bullshit. "Bernie Sanders and I established the ‘Expand Social Security Caucus’ in the Senate. As a senator, Joe Biden had a very different position on Social Security, and I think everyone's records on Social Security are important in this election."

That's the "moderate" lane (the conservative lane)-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And it's what Biden and Mayo Pete are fighting over. "Biden’s campaign largely has been void of raw inspiration or excitement," wrote Viser; "he and his surrogates, including a church deacon and a former secretary of state, have tried to make a pragmatic case, that he is the most electable person to face President Trump. Biden’s campaign, and the super PAC supporting him, have flooded the Iowa airwaves."

While the two of them were fighting for the conservative lane, Bernie just received another powerful endorsement, this one from Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal. Watch:





One more thing: New Hampshire.

Yesterday, the WBUR poll of New Hampshire's likely Democratic primary voters was released. It was massive for Bernie, whose support nearly doubled and has put him ahead of the pack by double digits.

• Bernie- 29% (up 14)
• Mayo- 17% (down 1)
• Status Quo Joe- 14% (down 3)
• Elizabeth Warren- 13% (up 1)
• Klobuchar- 6 (up 3)
• Yang- 5% (flat)
• Tulsi- 5% (flat)
• Steyer- 2% (down 1)
• Bloomberg- 1% (down 1)

Steyer and Bloomberg has each spent more in advertising than the rest of the field combined and each has lost half their support once the barrage of ads began bothering the hell out of New Hampshire voters. The two biggest issues for New Hampshire Democrats: healthcare and the Climate Crisis. And who do they trust on those two issues? Bernie, of course. Oh, and Status Quo Joe's new ad isn't true-- no matter how much corporate cash he spends repeating it over and over and over. Biden, who generates the least enthusiasm of any candidate, is actually the least electable candidate, despite the nicely cut new ad: