More On The Inauthenticity Of Right Wing Ideologue Mike Pence

Monday morning, after Mike Pence's nasty little stunt over the weekend, the NFL's Player's Association felt compelled the release a statement on their members constitutional rights:

NFL players are union members and part of the labor movement that has woven the fabric of America for generations. Our men and their families are also conscientious Americans who continue to be forces for good through our communities and some have decided to use their platform to peacefully raise awareness to issues that deserve attention.

It is a source of enormous pride that some of the best conversations about these issues have taken place in our locker rooms in a respectful, civil and thoughtful way that should serve as a model for how all of us can communicate with each other.

  We should not stifle these discussions and cannot allow our rights to become subservient to the very opinions our Constitution protects. That is what makes us the land of the free and home of the brave.

Gregg Doyel is a sports columnist for the Indianapolis Star , Indiana's top newspaper. His Sunday column was harsh towards the state's former governor, accusing him of using the Colts in a cheap political p.r. stunt against the First Amendment.

Two weeks after President Trump decreed that NFL players who kneel during the national anthem should be fired, Vice President Mike Pence walked out of Lucas Oil Stadium on Sunday after about 20 members of the San Francisco 49ers knelt during the anthem. The 49ers were in town to play the Indianapolis Colts.

Pence was in town to upstage Peyton Manning.

What, you think he didn’t know the 49ers would kneel on Sunday? Pence knew. The 49ers are the one franchise, the only franchise, that have had at least one player kneel before every game since Colin Kaepernick was the first to do it in the 2016 preseason. Kaepernick played for the 49ers, of course. Last week, following Trump’s unpatriotic assertion that he would fire someone for exercising their First Amendment rights, more than half the San Francisco roster knelt.

Pence knew.

Hell, the media members that follow Pence were told before the game not to bother leaving their vans and enter Lucas Oil Stadium, according to a tweet from NBC News Vaughn Hillyard. They wouldn’t be there long, because Pence wouldn’t be there long. Trump, as Trump is wont to do, took credit in a tweet for Pence's walkout by saying he'd asked Pence to leave if anyone knelt.

This was planned.

And he wrote that he is "stunned that the President-- and now Vice President-- of the United States would take such a public position against one of the greatest rights the U.S. Constitution grants us: freedom of speech. It’s one thing for you to rip NFL players for kneeling during the anthem. They have the right to kneel, and you have the right to hate it. You have the right to boo. You have the right to rise from your seat and leave the game. So many of my family members fought overseas, some of them not coming back completely whole, for you to have that right. So, boo. So, leave. You don’t have my agreement, but you have my support. But when the top two elected leaders of our democracy decide that political speech-- in this case, a silent and non-violent form of political speech-- is unacceptable to the point of walking out of the game where it happens, well, that’s chilling. That’s the kind of oppressive nonsense our ancestors were leaving when they crossed the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of years ago."

He also asked "how much taxpayer money did Pence waste to make this grandiose statement of political oppression, anyway? He traveled here with his usual contingent of aides and bodyguards, and he didn’t fly standby on Delta. Chew on that for just a minute." Figures I've seen range from $250,000 on the low end to as much as $400,000. As Philip Bump mentioned Monday morning in the Washington Post, "Pence’s appearance at the game and his well-coordinated exit from it was staged... Pence’s flight to Indianapolis was planned for weeks; his social-media response ready to go with a graphic immediately after he left the stadium. It’s an impressive level of preparation for an administration, as it turns out, focused on goading the president’s base into anger at black athletes. The trip wasn’t free, and the idea that it was a cost savings is ridiculous. But the really galling aspect of Pence’s jaunt was that it demonstrated the sort of issue on which the administration is deliberate about having its act together."

So what about the quickie trip out to California from Indianapolis? That wasn't just something Pence threw together at the last minute either. As Alexei Koseff of the Sacramento Bee explained "If Democrats are going to take back control of the House of Representatives next year, their path travels straight through California. Half of the 14 remaining members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation won last November in districts that went to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton." And those were the seats Pence-- and Kevin McCarthy-- are trying to save for the GOP.

After arriving yesterday for an event in Beverly Hills, Pence is scheduled to make three more stops across the state today, starting this morning in Bakersfield, McCarthy’s hometown.

Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel will host a luncheon with Pence at Newport Beach’s Pelican Hill Golf Club, according to the Orange County Register. Four of the seven targeted members-- Reps. Darrell Issa of Vista, Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa, Ed Royce of Fullerton and Mimi Walters of Laguna Niguel-- represent portions of Orange County, which selected a Democrat for president for the first time in 80 years in 2016.


Pence finishes the evening in Sacramento, according to details provided to The Bee. The event, at the Hyatt Regency on L Street, includes a VIP roundtable, a photo reception and a dinner starting at 8:30 p.m.

Ted Lieu (D-CA) is delighted Pence is in California. Yesterday he told us that "Pence supports Trump's deficit-exploding tax plan, which also disproportionately hurts Californians by eliminating the state and local income tax deduction. In addition, Pence spent over $242,000 of taxpayers money to fly to a football game and then leave, purely as a PR stunt. As the Vice Chair of the Western Region for the DCCC, I am pleased there will be pictures of Pence standing next to vulnerable Republican Members of Congress."

None of the California Democratic candidates I spoke to seemed concerned either. Sam Jammal, the progressive taking on Ed Royce (CA-39), had a great attitude, much like Lieu's: "Welcome to Southern California Vice President Pence! We voted for Hillary, not your boss. Though you may still think we are living in the 1950's and this is the old Nixon Orange County of yesterday, we actually have nothing in common with you today. It's 2018 and we believe in science, support women's rights, respect our LGBTQ friends, value immigrants and believe the economy shouldn't just work for the 1%. Take some time to admire our coast, diversity and culture. It might do you some good when you return to DC. Before you leave, take plenty of photos with Ed Royce. He will pretend you aren't friends this time next year, but we all know he is your most loyal Yes Man."

Laura Oatman, the progressive running for the Orange County seat Dana Rohrabacher occupies, sent me the photo above from the protests along Pence's route to the Pelican Hill Golf Club where he's raised campaign funds from GOP fat cats trying to keep Rohrabacher in office. "Pence’s stunt yesterday is right out of Donald Trump’s sophomoric playbook," she told us. "Pretending to protest a legitimate protest, his political prank cost taxpayers over $200K. And today he has the audacity to come to my hometown to raise money for our very 'patriotic' Dana Russiabacker. I wonder if he was surprised by the number of true patriots in Newport Beach who were out there protesting his visit?"

Kia Hamadanchy is one of the progressives running for the CA-45 seat held-- but not lived in-- by Trump rubber-stamp Mimi Walters. He's not surprised about Pence's fundraiser for her in Rohrabacher's district (where she lives.) "It's no wonder that Mike Pence is coming to Orange County to raise money for Mimi Walters. Why wouldn't he for the person who by all accounts is one of Donald Trump's favorite members of Congress and who has backed his agenda wholeheartedly and without question? It's also not surprising that Mimi Walters prefers that Mike Pence come raise money for her in the district in which she actually lives in, not the one she represents. At the end of the day its doesn't matter how many times Mike Pence comes to Orange County to raise money for her. Mimi Walters has not been accountable or accessible to her constituents and come November 2018 she will see that all the money raised in the world is going to allow her to escape or hide her record of supporting Donald Trump every single step of the way."

Ricardo Franco is way up in the Central Valley, running for the seat Devin Nunes is clinging to. Pence was in the area with McCarthy Sunday. The right-of-center DCCC establishment candidate, Andrew Janz, is off in DC hobnobbing with lobbyists and corrupt politicians but Franco is working in the district to help make CA-22 voters aware of what we're all facing with the rise of Trumpism. "After Pence's staged walk-out this weekend from an NFL game, it's clear that he's also willing to waste taxpayer money and any credibility he had simply to do 45's bidding," he told us. "His trip to deep-blue California to save House seats targeted by the DCCC shows they're desperate. I doubt Republicans can hold onto seats simply relying on the base Trump depended on to get elected. However, one thing is clear: Pence and other Republicans would do better to save themselves by actually passing good, meaningful legislation to boost their resumes rather than raising money to spread more lies. He can now join our local Congressman Devin Nunes as one of Trump's lap-dogs. Pence will tour California this week because Republicans know that Trump's presence would be ill-received, and Nunes will attend a GOP fundraiser next week in wealthy San Mateo County instead of meeting with constituents here. The GOP is trying to perpetuate a cycle of failure they started back in November: raise money from the wealthy and special interests to win seats in government, fail to get anything done, then blame Democrats to raise more money... all while forgetting about regular, working-class people trying to feed families."

Contested Elections Are Important For A Real Democracy-- Or Are We Russia Already?

Yeah, that's Sean Duffy on the right... helping wreck America with impunity

Funny how elections focus the minds of politicians-- or at least elections where there is real opposition. when the incompetent boobs who run the DCCC announced there would be no targeting of Republican congressmembers in Wisconsin in 2018-- not of Paul Ryan, of course, but also not of Sean Duffy and Glenn Grothman-- all 5 Republican members from Wisconsin relaxed... and stopped worrying about voting for policies far to the right of what would make sense for their mainstream constituents. The other day, Duffy went on CNN and brazenly defended Donald Trump, Jr. conspiring against America with the Kremlin, in other words treason. "I don't have an issue with it," said Duffy, knowing there would be no electoral consequences for himself. "There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a crime... I have no problems with what Donald Jr. did, and I don't think any prosecutor would either."

Duffy represents a traditionally progressive district in the northwest part of the state that stretches from Wausau to the suburbs of Duluth. In 2008 Obama beat McCain 53% to 45% and in 2012 Obama lost to Romney 51-48%. Dave Obey served as congressman from WI-07 from 1969 to 2011, when he retired and the DCCC lost the district to Duffy. They didn't back the progressive Democrats who ran against Duffy in 2014 or 2016 and so far this cycle there is no Democratic candidate-- all the prospective candidates citing DCCC hostility as a reason for not running, despite the urgency of having candidates run down-ticket to help reelect Tammy Baldwin. Not to mention, keeping the party from completely atrophying in the district. Atrophying of local parties, I'm sorry to say, is the only thing the DCCC has regularly accomplished since Pelosi started calling the shots there.

Anyway, with no opponent, Duffy is free to vote in lockstep with the Trump Regime and to go on TV and promote the nonsense and lies that the Regime is built on. The congressmembers who are being targeted in the 2018 cycle are far more likely to oppose Trump and to not make crackpot statements defending treason. Look at Scott Taylor in Virginia for example, He was also on CNN this week talking about Don Jr's treason with the Russians. Trump narrowly won his Virginia Beach/Williamsburg district-- 48.8% to 45.4%-- but there are already 3 Democrats vying for the nomination to oppose him. And Taylor's CNN appearance was very different--much more mainstream-- than Duffy's. He expressed his frustration with with the bobbing and weaving the Trump regime-- and Trump family-- have been displaying in their attempts to coverup the treasonous behavior.

"The reality is, if you had some meetings, if you met some folks ... say what you've done, get it out there. But yeah, it gets frustrating when you have this. Because I do think that some of this is really overplayed and I think ultimately folks that are on the streets-- American people-- don't care. They're over it," Taylor said on CNN's The Lead.

...Taylor also criticized Congress' handling of the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential race in favor of Trump, saying that neither Democrats nor Republicans have taken meaningful steps to deter future efforts to meddle in U.S. elections.

"What you have to have here is a policy; A policy that says to other nations they will not interfere in our election," he said. "A Monroe Doctrine in cyber, if you will. That's missing from this debate and that's very unfortunate, both on the Democrats and the Republicans."

Another Republican who is going to have a tough reelection bid, Leonard Lance, voted for TrumpCare in committee, but when his constituents went wild he switched and voted against TrumpCare when the final vote came in the House. He has been regularly running to Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC to complain about Trump. Watch what Hayes did to him on Friday evening:



It would have been a far different conversation if Sean Duffy was Hayes' guest, of that we can be very sure. In a democracy, contested elections aren't just important to pick our representatives but also to hold them accountable for their behavior. That isn't something Sean Duffy-- and scores of other Republican incumbents-- have to worry about from a DCCC that has been utterly mishandled by Nancy Pelosi from the moment she got control of it. And there are some thing Pelosi is good at. But she's in a 100% safe blue district-- Hillary beat Trump there 86.2% to 8.7%-- and she is utterly clueless about how elections work-- as are the entire upper echelon of the Democratic congressional leadership. Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn and Crowley don't understand electoral politics-- which is reflected by DCCC strategies. They all desperately need primaries to sharpen their own focus.

Does Lindsey Graham Think It's Somehow Exculpatory That Junior And Kushner-In-Law Are "New" To Treason And Couldn't Be Expected To Understand?

Vox tried to explain why people call Donald Trump, Jr. "Fredo Trump." It's a reference to the slow-witted, bungling middle son in The Godfather. Cute. What Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee had to say about Don, Jr. yesterday was... less cute: "This morning’s New York Times report provided new and deeply troubling details surrounding a meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort with a representative of the Russian government-- Natalia Veselnitskaya. Donald Trump, Jr.’s subsequent response, including the released excerpts from an email exchange, suggest incriminating evidence of collusion with Russia by the highest levels of the Trump campaign. Donald Trump, Jr. confirmed interest in, and expressed support for, working with Russian officials who offered allegedly incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton for the purpose of assisting Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. This revelation is significant, both for the ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as new investigative territory that relate to President Trump and his associates. The repeated denials of meetings and contacts of this kind now lend new weight to possible charges of obstruction of justice given what appears to be clear evidence of an intent to collude between the campaign and the Russian government. The public interest to uncover answers raises new questions in this regard: Did President Trump know about the offer presented to his campaign, and/or the correspondence and eventual meeting between his son, Mr. Kushner, and Mr. Manafort and the Russian representative? Was the President and/or his administration trying to conceal efforts to engage in criminal activity-- namely, the conspiracy to commit election fraud-- by failing to disclose or obstructing the discovery and investigation of foreign contacts? The criminal investigation by Director Mueller and the House and Senate Intelligence Committee investigations must, of course, continue. However, when it comes to investigating the sweeping nature of the current allegations, the firing of FBI Director Comey, the potential criminal activity by the Trump campaign, and the attempt by a foreign power to undermine our elections-- it is clear that we must have open hearings with the jurisdiction and authority to fully conduct an investigation of this matter. The House Judiciary Committee should immediately conduct hearings to investigate, and I call on Chairman Goodlatte and the Republican leadership to allow the public interest to be served."



The first of the smoking gun e-mails is just over one year old-- sent by a slimy Trump associate, Rob Goldstone, on behalf of Emin Agalarov, son of Aras Agalarov, a real estate tycoon and Putin associate sometimes called the "Donald Trump of Russia"-- at the height of Putin's campaign to wreak havoc on the West by installing the clownish Donald, Sr. as the President of the United States. "Enjoy your democracy, Conrades!"

Yes, a Trump business partner in Russia contacted poor dumb Fredo with an explicit offer from the Russian government to help them destroy Clinton. And Fredo bit.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material-- or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign-- he gave no indication.

He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”

Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would most likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers.

On June 9, the Russian lawyer was sitting in the younger Mr. Trump’s office on the 25th floor of Trump Tower, just one level below the office of the future president.

Over the last several days, the New York Times has disclosed the existence of the meeting, whom it involved and what it was about. The story has unfolded as The Times has been able to confirm details of the meetings.

But the email exchanges, which were reviewed by The Times, offer a detailed unspooling of how the meeting with the Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, came about-- and just how eager Donald Trump Jr. was to accept what he was explicitly told was the Russian government’s help.

The Justice Department, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, is examining whether any of President Trump’s associates colluded with the Russian government to disrupt last year’s election. American intelligence agencies have determined that the Russian government tried to sway the election in favor of Mr. Trump...

After being told that The Times was about to publish the content of the emails, instead of responding to a request for comment, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out images of them himself on Tuesday.

...At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy press secretary, read a statement from President Trump in which he defended his son. “My son is a high-quality person, and I applaud his transparency,” the president said.

But Ms. Sanders said she was “going to have to refer everything on this matter to Don Jr.’s counsel.” She said she did not know when the president had last spoken with his son.

Well... at least Trump hasn't claimed that he hardly knows who Donald, Jr. is... at least not yet. He could get Howard Stern to release the tapes of him calling baby Barron Trump "a retard" and subsequently-- after Melania refused to have sex with him anymore for the affront to her child-- said he didn't mean Barron was the retard and that "everybody" knows it's Don, Jr. who's the retard (Trump's word; Democrats don't refer to slow-witted people as "retards"). Anyway, this is a photo on Eric and Junior before Trump made them... get some work done.

Growing up Eric and Fredo

Kushner recently disclosed the fact of the meeting, though not the content, in a revised form on which all those seeking top secret security clearances are required to list contacts with foreign government officials and their representatives. The Times reported in April that he had failed to list a number of Russian contacts, which his lawyer called an error.

Mr. Manafort also disclosed that a meeting had occurred, and that Donald Trump Jr. had organized it, in response to one of the Russia-related congressional investigations.

Representatives for both men did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Ms. Veselnitskaya arrived the next day and was ushered into Donald Trump Jr.’s office for a meeting with what amounted to the Trump campaign’s brain trust.

Besides having politically connected clients, one of whom was under investigation by federal prosecutors at the time of the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya is well known for her lobbying efforts against the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that punishes designated Russian human rights abusers by allowing the United States to seize their assets and keep them from entering the country. The law so angered Mr. Putin that he retaliated by barring American families from adopting Russian children. Her activities and associations have brought her to the attention of the F.B.I., according to a former senior law enforcement official.

When first contacted by The Times on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. portrayed the meeting this way: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.”

The next day, after The Times informed him that it was preparing an article that would say that the meeting also involved a discussion about potentially compromising material on Mrs. Clinton, he issued another statement: “I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance,” he said. “After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”

How to draw a pig-- by Kyle Smith

Mr. Goldstone recalled the meeting in much the same way.

Ms. Veselnitskaya offered “just a vague, generic statement about the campaign’s funding and how people, including Russian people, living all over the world donate when they shouldn’t donate” before turning to her anti-Magnitsky Act arguments, he said. “It was the most inane nonsense I’ve ever heard.”

Ms. Veselnitskaya, for her part, said in an statement to The Times sent this past weekend that “nothing at all about the presidential campaign” had been discussed at the Trump Tower meeting, adding that she had “never acted on behalf of the Russian government” and that she had “never discussed any of these matters with any representative of the Russian government.” She has not responded to requests for comment since.

A spokesman for Mr. Putin said on Monday that he did not know Ms. Veselnitskaya and that he had no knowledge of the June 2016 meeting.

Back in Washington, both the White House and a spokesman for President Trump’s lawyer have taken pains to distance the president from the meeting, saying that he did he not attend it and that he learned about it only recently.

Given that everyone in the sage-- every single one-- is a known and confirmed congenital liar, I suspect only Robert Mueller is going to able to sort this all out and confirm what many of us feel we're looking at is a smoking gun of treason. Or will Trumpanzee fire him too? Politico reported that former Justice Department prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg termed the e-mails "Extremely damaging... Certainly shows an intent to collude with Russian government." Or, as Charles Pierce put it in Esquire yesterday, "The government of the United States is a shambles. An incompetent administration headed by an unqualified buffoon is now descending into criminal comedy and maladroit backstabbing. It is an administration that not only self-destructs, but glories in the process. There seems to be no end to it, and no desire to end it by the people who actually have the power to do so. That, in itself, seems curious, and it probably should remind us all that Paul Ryan's Super PAC was hip-deep in the borscht itself. Ryan, who really is the person best situated to close the circus down, seems to be afflicted with one of his periodic bouts of invisibility, poor lad. There's a great unfolding treason now-- not just the precise constitutionally defined treason, but a general betrayal of reason, of self-government, of honesty and of high office. They are now committing treason against themselves, grim betrayal winding around itself in coils ever tightening until there is nothing but the foul exhaling of the final breath of things that once belonged to better people than them."

Fredo immediately ran out and hired himself a criminal defense attorney, Alan Futerfas, to represent him in all things regarding treason and Putin-Gate. And, yes, everyone who went on TV yesterday for Trump and Putin and used the coordinated phrase "nothing-burger," is a traitor to America and should be treated as such. This tweet from a very conservative Suffolk County congressman and Trump ally shows the degree of discomfiture congressional Republicans are going through right now:

Who's Watching Trump To Make Sure He Doesn't Do Anything Dangerous?

Last night Trump's Art of the Deal ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz, told CNN viewers on Anderson Coope’s 360 that Señor Trumpanzee is having a "significant meltdown. He’s in pure defensive mode. I think that he’s being run by the part of his brain that’s reactive and impulsive, not capable of reflection... The sense of siege that he feels because his sense of self-worth is so, so vulnerable that the series of things that have happened are overwhelming to him." This morning he took to twitter to whine about how unfair life is to him.

Katie Glueck, writing for McClatchy: "Pangs of fear and frustration are rippling through the Republican donor and operative classes as Donald Trump's self-inflicted wounds threaten to fully derail the GOP legislative agenda and tarnish the party's brand headed into the midterm."

Last night, the Time's Nick Kristof speculated that "the Trump presidency may now be disintegrating, tumbling toward entropy... If Trump thought he was removing a thorn by firing Comey, he now faces a grove of thistles." He seemed concerned about the dangers ahead for the country.

One is that America will be incapacitated and paralyzed by Mueller’s investigation and the suspicions-- this partly explains the stock market’s big fall on Wednesday-- and foreign powers may take advantage of this to undertake their own mischief. I would worry about Russia in both Ukraine and the Baltic countries, and we must make clear that we will work with allies to respond in kind.

Another danger is the risk of an erratic, embattled, paranoid leader at home who feels that he may be going down the tubes anyway. In domestic policy, presidents are constrained by Congress and the courts about what damage they can cause, but in foreign policy a president has a largely free hand-- and the ability to launch nuclear strikes that would pretty much destroy the world.

In 1974, as Richard Nixon’s presidency was collapsing, he was drinking heavily and aides worried that he was becoming unstable. Fearing what might go wrong, Nixon’s defense secretary, James Schlesinger, secretly instructed the military not to carry out any White House order to use nuclear weapons unless confirmed by him or Henry Kissinger.

This was unconstitutional. And wise.

Schlesinger also prepared secret plans to deploy troops in Washington in the event of problems with the presidential succession.

We don’t know how Trump will respond in the coming months, and let’s all hope for smooth sailing. But as with Schlesinger’s steps, it’s wise to be prepared.

There have been calls for Trump aides to resign rather than ruin their reputations, but I hope the grown-ups-- H. R. McMaster, Jim Mattis, Dina Powell, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson-- grit their teeth and stick it out. The White House has never needed more adult supervision.

The cabinet has the constitutional power to remove a president by majority vote under the 25th Amendment (if the president protests, this must be confirmed by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress). Such a vote is unlikely, but in the event of a crisis like the one Schlesinger envisioned, it would be essential.

I hope that cabinet members are keeping one another’s cellphone numbers handy in case an emergency meeting becomes necessary for our nation.

Trump Will Be Toxic For Republicans In 2018-- But This Sunday His Endorsement Will Help Sink French Fascist Marine Le Pen

This weekend French voters will chose between a drab establishment centrist, Emmanuel Macron (their version of Hillary, only with less accomplishments) and neo-fascist leader Marine Le Pen, politically the French Trump, although probably not as ignorant as the New York version. So Obama endorsed Macron (video above).

Needless to say, Trump (and Putin) have both let it be known that they prefer Le Pen. Of course they do-- but a new poll suggests that their support isn'y going to help Le Pen this weekend at the polls, especially not Trump's support... while Obama's support could actually do Macron some good.

A new Suffolk University poll of French voters finds that 82 percent view Donald Trump unfavorably. Former President  Obama fares considerably better, with a nearly 90 percent favorable rating among the same respondents.

Mr. Trump is the lowest-ranking foreign leader among French voters. The survey shows they hold him in lower regard than Russian president Vladimir Putin, who garners a 70.9 percent unfavorable rating.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and British Prime Minister Theresa May are viewed mainly unfavorably by more than 40 percent of French voters.

However, German Chancellor Angela Merkel receives high marks, with a nearly 70 percent favorability.

The two most recent French presidential polls, one from Ifop-Fiducial released yesterday and one from Opinion Way released the day before, both show Macron leading Le Pen 61% to 39%, which would give him the biggest presidential win since Jacques Chirac beat her Nazi father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, 82-18% in 2002.

And now this! (Watch Olberman's video below.) Is France investigating how the Kremlin has been working furiously to throw their country's presidental elections to Le Pen, the way they did here in the U.S. for Putin's cockholster?



Moments before the French election news blackout tonight, the Kremlin's top hacking battalion went after Macron and his campaign with a Wikileaks attack that can't be discussed in the French media until after voting is over Sunday. This evening The Guardian reported that the hacking attack was "massive and coordinated" and by... Fancy Bear.

Less than 48 hours before polling day, around nine gigabytes of data was posted by a user called EMLEAKS to the document-sharing site Pastebin that allows anonymous posting. It was not immediately clear who was responsible.

Macron’s political movement, En Marche!, confirmed the hack, saying it had been the “victim of a massive and coordinated hack this evening which has given rise to the diffusion on social media of various internal information.”

The statement added that the data consisted of “diverse documents such as emails, accounting documents and contracts” hacked several weeks ago from the personal and professional accounts of some of the movement’s staffers.

“Coming in the final hours of the campaign, this operation clearly amounts to democratic destabilisation as was seen in the United States,” it said, adding that En Marche! had “consistently been targeted by such initiatives” through the campaign.

It said “many false documents” had been added to genuine stolen documents on social media “in order to sow doubt and disinformation” as part of an operation “clearly intended to harm the movement.”

The authentic documents were all lawful, however, and “reflected the normal functioning of an election campaign,” the statement said. Their publication “does not alarm us as to the prospect of any questions being raised about their legality.”

The WikiLeaks website posted a Twitter link to the cache of documents, saying it “contains many tens of thousands (of) emails, photos, attachments up to April 24, 2017.” It indicated it was not responsible for the leak itself... Trend Micro, a cybersecurity firm, said last month a hacking group, believed to be part of a Russian intelligence unit, was targeting Macron and his campaign team, adding that it appeared to be the same Fancy Bear group behind the hacking of Democratic campaign officials before last year’s US presidential election.

Tired Of Losing Yet?

As we pointed out this morning, the U.S. economy grew just 0.7 percent since Señor Trumpanzee's kleptocracy took over the Oval Office, the weakest showing in 3 years. And when he whined that the job-- of president-- was harder than he had ever imagined, former Mexican President Vicente Fox trolled him on twitter: "Being president ain’t easy... just go back to golfing."

But Trump did accomplish one thing that is sure to tickle the heart and soul of his base-- or at least will on Monday. The clownish new Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue will promulgate a new rule to make sure the kiddies in Trump counties as obese as their parents who voted Trump into the White House. Outsider Southern blackbelts the most obese counties in each state didn't just vote for Trump, they voted for Trump as though their next meal depended on it. I promise to come back to Perdue's "Let's Make America Fat Again" plan in a minute, but let's look at the obese counties full of Trump voters. Florida's most obese county is Calhoun, where 40.7% of the people are clinically obese. 76.6% of the voters there went for Trump. Breathitt is the most obese county in Kentucky (42.9%) and 69.6% of them voted for Trump. 41.4% of the folks in Washita Co., Oklahoma are obese and they went for Trump massively-- 83.2%. Campbell Co., Wyoming is the Trumpiest obese county in America. 33.6% over-do the eating thing and 88.0% voted for Trump. Logan County played a similar role in West Virginia, where 41.2% of the folks are obese and 80.1% voted for Trump. Thurston County, Nebraska has an obesity rate of 40,8% and 60.3% voted for Trump. Caldwell County, Missouri has an obesity rate of 39.2% and 75.0% went Trump. Similar story in Indiana's most obese county, Jackson (39.3%), where 73.3% went Trump You get the picture, right? Let me add Kansas in here. The most obese county is Cherokee County (38.7%), significantly higher than the state's overall obesity level (30.2%). Statewide, Kansas went for Trump 57.2% to 36.2% for Hillary. Cherokee County was far Trumpier-- 71.8% to 23.4%. I'm not sure if that's where Perdue is hooking up with Kansas Senator Pat Roberts Monday but the two of them will be announcing another Trump era WIN!

Republicans have long been trying to dial back the standards that became a pillar of former first lady Michelle Obama’s initiative to curb childhood obesity in the U.S.

Roberts introduced legislation with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) last year to give schools two more years to meet new reductions on sodium, but the bill never passed.

Renewed efforts to ease the federal standards came as disappointing news to some advocates.

The American Heart Association was quick to push back. In a statement, the group’s CEO, Nancy Brown, said the current standards are already working and that 99 percent of schools are in compliance.

“Improving children’s health should be a top priority for the USDA, and serving more nutritious foods in schools is a clear-cut way to accomplish this goal,” she said.

“Rather than altering the current path forward, we hope the agency focuses more on providing technical assistance that can help schools get across the finish line, if they haven’t done so already.”

What more could anyone want from their president-- more diabetes and heart disease in their childrens' future-- coupled with less and less healthcare. That's winning in Trump's America!

Are We Hypocrites? Does Anyone Remember Napalm?

-by Helen Klein

We used chemical weapons against civilians big time during the Vietnam War. How can we claim the moral high ground and use this as a justification to initiate bombing in yet another country? I love our country and the high ideals to which we aspire. But, let’s do so with our eyes open and learn from our mistakes.

It is hard to watch the Syria situation unfold with anything but disbelief. With the uncalled for horrors of the pointless and illegally drummed up Iraq War so close in the rear view mirror, we are now witnessing much of the press and Congress-- Democrats as well as Republicans-- rushing to show support for Trump and his knee jerk cruise missile strike in Syria. The apparent rationale for this is that America takes the moral high road. How forgetful of our own past are we? How blind can we be? Very forgetful, I fear, and equally blind. And also hypocritical. Let’s be honest with ourselves and demonstrate that American can be truly great and earn the right to adopt high moral standards when dealing with other countries. We have risen to the occasion in the past, as we did with Vietnam and Watergate, and we can do so again.

Unfortunately, many Americans are the victims of our educational system, with poor knowledge of history and limited critical thinking skills. Congress and the media, however, have no excuse. As a whole, our country has shown that we are able to engage in self-reflection when push comes to shove, but we can also be pompous and arrogant. We need to analyze our actions and ourselves and then aim to do better. At this point in time, however, Trump has emphasized that our country is the greatest on earth, has moral superiority and can do no wrong. This simplistic, hollow view that he promotes likely helped him win the election and his supporters continue to cling to it. While Americans take enormous pride in our country and this view is sure nice to hear and feels good, reality is more complex and can be hard to accept. We need to open our eyes, not have our eyes wide shut.

Perspective is needed. Now more than ever, it is important for Americans to be aware of and remember our own use of chemical weapons. In the past, we were horrified and disturbed by this as well as angered by our government’s actions. We protested and objected to napalm. Dow Chemical Company was vilified for manufacturing the substance and its products were boycotted.

History shows that like many countries, when it comes to war, at least certain wars, we excel at talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Trump is full of bluster and he lays claim to a moral high ground of which he is truly undeserving. We certainly should not initiate another ghastly illegal fruitless war on this basis. The recent intervention in Syria is eerily similar to the beginnings of the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. With Trump at the helm, this looms as a disaster of immense proportions, likely at a much greater cost to our country and the world than either Iraq or Vietnam. Alarm bells should be ringing but they are way too faint. While some journalists, such as Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, have been critical of Trump’s action, others, such as Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, are offering support.

With all of the current brouhaha (and rightly so) about the chemical weapons used by Assad, let’s take a good look at the Vietnam War and what we, the United States of America, actually did to that country with napalm.

The Vietnam War was a huge mistake, a disaster. Our rationale was that we were fighting communism. We installed a pro-American puppet as President and propped up his government with the goal of bringing democracy there. Sound familiar? No surprise, it did not work out well.

Our weapon of choice against the Vietcong was napalm. This was “a tactical weapon used to remove vegetative cover and instill fear.” Whether napalm is considered a chemical weapon or an incendiary weapon, it is monstrous and has lasting and ruinous health effects. Baby boomers well recall the horrendous photographs and videos of the unbearable pain and suffering inflicted on the Vietnamese who were exposed to napalm, as well as the devastating damage it did to the environment. Napalm was spewed down from our airplanes in an indiscriminate manner and caused massive fires, destruction and death. Vietnamese soldiers, young men, women, children and babies (yes, babies) were damaged or killed in a random fashion. We did this to thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

What is napalm? From Wikipedia:

Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel that sticks to the skin and burns. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire.

Napalm clings to whatever it touches, creating a large, hotly burning area around the target. This feature also decreases the need for accuracy when dropping napalm bombs.

In World War I, American and German forces used flamethrowers, but the gasoline dripped off of the targets so military leaders desired a substance that was thicker. In 1942, a team of scientists at Harvard, led by Dr. Louis Feiser, developed napalm. The term comes from the chemicals involved: “na” from naphthenic acid, and “palm” from palmitic acid (from coconut oil). Combining these agents with gasoline made an inexpensive highly effective weapon. It was also safer for the soldiers who used it, as it could be shot from long distances.

The book, Napalm: An American Biography by Robert M. Neer, released in 2013, is the authoritative book on this subject.

In a 2013 interview, Mark Thompson asked Neer why he picked the particular subtitle, An American Biography. Neer responded:

First, because this is napalm’s life story, from its birth on Valentine’s Day 1942 to President Barack Obama’s signature on his first full day in office of the first U.S. treaty to limit its use.

Second, because it is an American weapon: it was invented in America and has been used longer, more widely, and to greater effect by the United States than any other country.

Third, because this is a story of America, from global authority at the end of World War II to its increasingly constrained position in a globalizing world.

Excerpt from a review of the book in the Organization of American Historians:

As Neer writes, napalm “has burned more people, across more of the earth’s surface and over a longer period of time, in the name of the United States than in that of any other nation”. While Neer provides a detailed account of the weapon’s history, his insightful analysis underscores a more profound issue, namely the morality of deploying incendiary weapons against civilian populations. Thus, his book is more than a history of napalm; it is a thought- provoking study of how Americans have justified the killing of civilians in times of war.

Excerpts from the book:

(In Word War II), napalm created an inferno that killed over 87,500 people in Tokyo – more than died in the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki-- and went on to incinerate 64 Japanese cities. The bomb got the press, but napalm did the work.

Americans applauded front-page stories on the incineration of Tokyo and the firebombing of other Japanese cities. During the Korean War, the New York Times and other newspapers printed hundreds of articles that mentioned napalm. Criticism, if it occurred at all, was fleeting.

Vietnam changed this paradigm. For the first time, napalm’s horrific effects on civilians, especially children, received sustained attention in the United States. A grass-roots protest movement against the incendiary and its manufacturer Dow Chemical Corporation began in northern California in 1965. It spread across the country in the late 1960s, and linked business, weapon, war and country so effectively, and received such wide publicity, that napalm came to symbolize for many all that was objectionable about American involvement in Vietnam.

In 1972, as debacle loomed for U.S. forces, “The Terror of War” photograph of nine-year-old Kim Phúc, burned naked as she ran to escape fighting, became an icon. Defeat in 1975 took napalm’s reputation, and much of America’s, with it. Movies, songs, artworks, poems, books and articles produced during and especially after the Vietnam War popularized the anti-war movement’s argument, and made napalm a worldwide synonym for American brutality.

This book, with its extensive history of napalm and its use by our country, should be a “must read” for Congressmen, government officials, military leaders, Trump and his appointees. If only Trump would/could read a book.

Now about napalm after Vietnam:

The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons took place in 1980. Protocol III of the Convention forbade the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm.

Incendiary attacks against “concentrations of civilians” became war crimes. Most of America’s allies and greatest adversaries, their way smoothed by development of alternate military technologies, endorsed the compact in relatively short order.

America refused to accept the world’s judgment. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush did not even submit Protocol III to the Senate for discussion. Over time, however, events changed the calculus of national advantage. Commanders in Chief came to appreciate the benefits of working within global consensus. President Bill Clinton and his successor George W. Bush changed course, and urged ratification. In 2008, in the face of multilateral alliances assembled to regulate landmines and cluster munitions, and concern that international law to manage conventional weapons was slipping out of U.N. control, senators ratified the protocol. President Barack Obama signed it in 2009. A diplomatic reservation attached by the president, however, asserted that the United States could disregard the treaty at its discretion if doing so would save civilian lives. This provision, of questionable legal validity (although no doubt valid enough in practice), suggests nostalgia for unilateralism.

Our military has not stopped using napalm. In fact, we have continued to use napalm in conflicts since the 1980’s. Its most recent use was by U.S. forces during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Reports by the Sydney Morning Herald suggested the usage of napalm in the Iraq War by US forces. This was denied by the U.S. Department of Defense. In August 2003, the San Diego Union Tribune alleged that U.S. Marine pilots and their commanders confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs on Iraqi Republican Guards during the initial stages of combat. Official denials of the use of 'napalm' were, however, disingenuous, as the Mk 77 bomb that is currently in service at this time, the Mk 77 Mod 5, does not use actual napalm (e.g. napalm-B). The last U.S. bomb to use actual napalm was the Mark 77 Mod 4, the last of which were destroyed in March 2001. The substance used now is a different incendiary mixture, but sufficiently analogous in its effects that it is still a controversial incendiary, and can still be referred to colloquially as 'napalm.'

“We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches,” said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. “Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video. There were Iraqi soldiers there. It’s no great way to die,” he added. “The generals love napalm…it has a big psychological effect.” – San Diego Union-Tribune, August 2003

Our righteous indignation towards Assad, while certainly on the side of morality, does not seem to apply to ourselves when we have continued to use weapons similar to napalm. We dragged our feet and it took us almost thirty years to sign on to Protocol III. Still, the diplomatic reservation Obama attached maintains our right to disregard international law and use chemical weapons in the future under circumstances that we determine.

Where would Trump stand in relation to the last sentence? Unfortunately, his position on torture is a clue in the wrong direction.

The consequences of Trump’s bombing in Syria and where this will lead us is extremely concerning.

Another aspect to consider is the nature of this attack by Assad, as Putin is insisting that Assad is not responsible for it. Trump responded rashly and impulsively, without time to clarify the facts. Surely it would have been important to establish with certainty what really occurred prior to letting loose 59 missiles. Perhaps Putin is full of bluster, but there was no need to rush with so much at stake.

In these trying times, it is vitally important for Americans to keep their eyes open, listen carefully to what those in charge tell us, take a close look at what is done in our name and speak out. Journalists must do their job. This is what democracy is about. We must not be manipulated into another unwinnable, ill thought out, destructive war. The American people have come through before and can again. Then we will show how great our country really is.

L.A. Times Continues Hammering Trump-- They Used The "L" Word-- But Still Not The "F" Word

Monday the L.A. Times just flat-out admitted the president is a liar. Today, when they discussed his authoritarianism, they still could;'t bring themselves to say "fascist." I'm sure that will come sooner or later.

You've probably seen the release on the new Quinnipiac Poll from yesterday. It's so encouraging that every day more and more people are seeing through Trump's lies and rejecting his Regime. Even white voters (48-43%) and male voters (51-39%) have now turned on him. His approval is now 35%, down from 37% on March 22. Disapproval is up from 56% to 57%. We have a long way to go to get to the 75% disapproval that will be needed for the congressional Republicans to work up the fortitude to put country first and impeach him. Most Americans disapprove with the way he's handling every part of his job:

• Disapprove 61-29% of the way he is handling the environment
• Disapprove 48-41% of the way he is handling the economy
• Disapprove 58-33% of the way he is handling foreign policy
• Disapprove 49-42% of the way he is handling terrorism
• Disapprove 57-39% of the way he is handling immigration issues.

Worse yet, most Americans are revolted by his personal traits. Most voters see him in a negative light. That's going to keep going down as they see more and more of him and refuse to see him as "entertaining" in any way.

• 61-34%-- he is not honest;
• 55-40%-- he does not have good leadership skills;
• 57-39%-- he does not care about average Americans;
• 66-29%-- he is not level-headed;
• 64-33%-- he is a strong person;
• 60-35%-- he is intelligent;
• 61-34%-- he does not share their values.

Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll noted that "As President Trump's approval tanks, Congress, especially Republicans, follow right behind him. Speaker Paul Ryan is less popular than Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, a long-time target of the Right. Over on the Senate side, it's no party either. Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic leader Chuck Schumer both have terrible numbers." McConnell has a negative 14-47% favorability rating, compared to Schumer's negative 25-36%. Looks like the whole country is catching up with DWT! Overall, voters disapprove 70-21%t of the job Republicans in Congress are doing, compared to a 64-29% disapproval March 22. Compared to the 70% disapproval of congressional Republicans, the Democrats' 57% looks almost decent. Ryan has a negative 28-52% favorability rating, compared to Pelosi's negative 30-47%. And that brings us right to the 3rd installment of the multi-day L.A. Times mega-editorial on Trump, this one, Trump's Authoritarian Vision. Remember what we just saw in the polling above-- among all the negativity, two-thirds of voters say they still see Trump as "a strong person," unable to recognize his bluster, bullying and projection as the marks of a weakling. His dumb-ass campaign bullshit-- "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it"-- is both dangerous and authoritarian.



"Trump," the Times' editors granted, "has no experience in politics; he’s never previously run for office or held a government position. So perhaps he was unaware that one of the hallmarks of the American system of government is that the president’s power to 'fix' things unilaterally is constrained by an array of strong institutions-- including the courts, the media, the permanent federal bureaucracy and Congress. Combined, they provide an essential defense against an imperial presidency. Yet in his first weeks at the White House, President Trump has already sought to undermine many of those institutions. Those that have displayed the temerity to throw some hurdle in the way of a Trump objective have quickly felt the heat."

In a way, Trump represents a culmination of trends that have been years in the making.

Conservative talk radio hosts have long blasted federal judges as “activists” and regulators as meddlers in the economy, while advancing the myth of rampant election fraud. And gridlock in Washington has led previous presidents to try new ways to circumvent the checks on their power-- witness President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements to invalidate parts of bills Congress passed, and President Obama’s aggressive use of executive orders when lawmakers balked at his proposals.

What’s uniquely threatening about Trump’s approach, though, is how many fronts he’s opened in this struggle for power and the vehemence with which he seeks to undermine the institutions that don’t go along.

It’s one thing to complain about a judicial decision or to argue for less regulation, but to the extent that Trump weakens public trust in essential institutions like the courts and the media, he undermines faith in democracy and in the system and processes that make it work.

Trump betrays no sense for the president’s place among the myriad of institutions in the continuum of governance. He seems willing to violate long-established political norms without a second thought, and he cavalierly rejects the civility and deference that allow the system to run smoothly. He sees himself as not merely a force for change, but as a wrecking ball.

Will Congress act as a check on Trump’s worst impulses as he moves forward? One test is the House and Senate intelligence committees’ investigation into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election; lawmakers need to muster the courage to follow the trail wherever it leads. Can the courts stand up to Trump? Already, several federal judges have issued rulings against the president’s travel ban. And although Trump has railed against the decisions, he has obeyed them.

None of these institutions are eager to cede authority to the White House and they won’t do so without a fight. It would be unrealistic to suggest that America’s most basic democratic institutions are in imminent jeopardy.

But we should not view them as invulnerable either. Remember that Trump’s verbal assaults are directed at the public, and are designed to chip away at people’s confidence in these institutions and deprive them of their validity. When a dispute arises, whose actions are you going to consider legitimate? Whom are you going to trust? That’s why the public has to be wary of Trump’s attacks on the courts, the “deep state,” the “swamp.” We can’t afford to be talked into losing our faith in the forces that protect us from an imperial presidency.

Bannon Makes His Move Against Ryan-- The Move To Boehnerize The Speaker Is On

Very specific definition of "comrade"

According to NY Times reporter, Glenn Thrush, the very "idea that Trump worked hard to pass health care is a joke. He put in a semi-strenuous week-- spent little time on prep, drafting, per aides." Thrush isn't alone in that analysis. Amanda Carpenter is a professional right-wing nut. She used to write speeches for Jim DeMint and washed up in Ted Cruz's office when DeMint bailed ion the Senate. Sunday she chastised Señor Trumpanzee by tweeting that "President Obama worked for years to get Obamacare. You gave up on repeal after a couple weeks. Too complicated for you? Weak!," following that up with "Donald Trump has officially become Washington. Blaming Democrats, blaming conservatives, blaming everyone for his failure to deliver" and then moved on to "Dear R's in Congress: Ignore Trump in negotiations and send bills to his desk. He'll take those as wins bc he has no other choice." In the process, she laughed at the prospect of Trumpist boob Chris Collins replacing Paul Ryan as Speaker with "his caucus of none to enact the next legislative agenda item." Why is anyone talking about one Congress' silliest jokes, Chris Collins, as Speaker?

You are probably aware that on Saturday morning Señor Trumpanzee tweeted his 27 million followers that they had to watch "Judge" Jeanine's Fox at 9pm that night. And when they tuned in, the first thing the "judge" did was launch a vitriolic attack on Speaker Ryan and demand his resignation. The NY Times' Maggie Haberman reported Sunday that Reince Priebus insisted that the Trumpanzee tweet and the "judge" Jeanine diatribe were just coincidental. I bet their are Trump fans stupid enough to buy that, perhaps many of them. No normal people though.

Bannon, of course, is behind all this. Remember, it was Bannon-- a longtime Ryan hater-- who was skipping around DC whispering it any Republican who would listen that TrumpCare was such a disastrous bill because Ryan allowed the insurance industry-- which has given him $2,031,705 in bribes-- to write it. Bannon's power-base, Breitbart, started, once again, revving up the drumbeat for Ryan's ouster over the weekend. "Republican officials in Congress and the White House," asserted Matthew Boyle, "are now openly discussing finding a GOP replacement to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as Speaker of the House, after Ryan failed to pass the American Health Care Act out of the House and misled the public and President Donald Trump when he promised repeatedly the bill would pass... Many allies of the president and several White House officials over the weeks since have confirmed to Breitbart News that the president is concerned that Ryan may not have his-- or his agenda’s-- best interests at heart. Ryan’s failure to deliver the votes on healthcare cement Trump’s skepticism of Ryan, they say." This is straight out of the Mercer/Bannon playbook.

“This is another example of the staff not serving the president well and the weakness of the Paul Ryan speakership,” a source close to President Trump told Breitbart News. “This calls into question once again the speaker’s commitment to supporting Donald Trump and his agenda.”

“Speaker Ryan proved today that he does not have the best interests of the President at heart,” said another source close to the president. “He sold out the president and showed his word can be taken with a grain of salt. There is only one course of action that should be taken to move past this catastrophe and that is the swift removal of Paul Ryan from the speakership.”

White House sources tell Breitbart News that the president is very frustrated with Ryan and feels that he has saved him multiple times already. After the election in November, it was widely reported that there were enough Republican votes to remove Ryan as Speaker-- and the only reason conservatives kept him is that Trump won the election and embraced Ryan. But now Trump may perceive Ryan as a burden rather than someone who can help enact his agenda.

A senior Senate GOP aide questioned whether Ryan has the chops to continue in the position.

“A tale as old as time, our establishment leadership continue advocating for moderate pieces of legislation after ignoring conservative input,” the Senate aide said. “How can President Donald Trump trust Speaker Paul Ryan in the future after this failure? If he couldn’t deliver on something so simple as repealing Obamacare, will he be able to deliver on complex pieces of legislation?”

House Republicans are also questioning whether Ryan can remain as Speaker after this abysmal failure.

“If Speaker Ryan cannot pass his RyanCare plan and negotiations had to be taken to the Oval Office by non-leadership members of the conference, it is certainly time to evaluate his effectiveness as the Speaker of the House,” a senior House GOP aide told Breitbart News.

Senior aides from at least seven House GOP offices-- only two from the House Freedom Caucus-- tell Breitbart News that there is significant discussion conference-wide about a replacement to Ryan as Speaker of the House.

It has gotten so far along in the process that alternative names are being thrown around—anyone from House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), to former Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, to House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)—to Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Peter Roskam (R-IL), according to one senior House GOP aide.

Democrats have their fingers crossed that GOP makes Issa their leader

...There are ongoing discussions in House offices conference-wide whether Republicans should use the same tactic that conservatives used in 2015 to remove now-former Speaker John Boehner from the House. Back then, Meadows-- then just a member of the House Freedom Caucus-- introduced what is called a resolution with a motion to vacate the chair. He did so just before August recess, allowing it to gain public support.

When it reached critical mass, and enough Republicans backed it publicly or privately, a group of members approached Boehner to inform him they had enough votes to remove him from the Speakership. To avoid the public embarrassment of a vote in which he would be defeated, Boehner resigned and allowed for the peaceful shift to his eventual successor, Ryan-- which only happened after a tumultuous process. Members are beginning to wonder if it is now the time to use the same move on Ryan, given his disloyalty to Trump. Some Republicans want to wait for a smoke signal or sign from the White House that the president wants Ryan gone. Others want to just get it over with to help the president move on from the mess Ryan created.

Asked explicitly whether President Trump has confidence in Ryan remaining as Speaker, White House press secretary Sean Spicer would not answer Breitbart News, yes or no.

...What is more interesting, though, is Ryan seems to have lost control of the House of Representatives. One senior House GOP aide in an office not connected to the Freedom Caucus argued that Meadows-- the Freedom Caucus chairman who had been negotiating directly with President Trump in recent days-- has emerged as the new House GOP leader. “Meadows is the acting Speaker of the House,” the senior GOP aide in a non-Freedom Caucus office told Breitbart News. “The president now knows on future bills that Ryan cannot deliver the votes in his own conference, and he will have to negotiate directly with the different factions of the House. Ryan has lost the ability to lead the House. He is broken.”

As Breitbart News has previously reported, members have begun discussing this bill as Ryan’s death knell-- or at least the beginning of it. Ryan’s inability to maneuver the House of Representatives sufficiently to deliver on his promise to pass this bill has hampered his effectiveness and put at risk future legislation, such as tax reform, as well. Top conservative leaders are demanding that if he does stay on as Speaker-- by no means a certainty-- he change his ways.

Of course-- as carefully planned out at Mercer's Owl's Nest estate in Head of the Harbor, Long Island-- this has already moved well beyond Breitbart-world. Over the weekend, the NY Times was already crowing that Ryan had emerged from the healthcare defeat "badly damaged." His relationship with Trump, they reported is "imperiled... Ryan is now tasked with defending not just his leadership abilities but his very brand of conservatism in a party fitfully searching for a coherent policy identity that can deliver tangible victories."

His job will not get easier. With disparate coalitions in his conference, outside groups like the political arm of the Heritage Foundation pushing lawmakers to pursue conservative purity, and a less-than-popular president whom some members have appeared more willing to buck recently, there are few establishment forces helping Mr. Ryan keep the peace.

And next up on the agenda: mammoth and unaffordable tax cuts for the ultra-rich. This time Trump and the Freedom Caucus extremists are-- at least partially-- on the same side against Ryan and the more mainstream conservatives. The Freedom Caucus says tax cuts don't need to be off-set while the Republican dogma Ryan embraces insists on a revenue-neutral bill. Trump doesn't worry about dogma-- or consequences past the next poll-- and the idea of revenue-neutral would be anathema to him if he even knew what it meant. Still... he is Donald Trump and don't be surprised if he even screws this one up. Priebus was on Fox News Sunday yesterday warning Republicans that the White would work with the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the New Dems and Blue Dogs-- if the House Republicans step out of line on some of his more crackpot schemes, like a "border tax" that many conservatives-- and virtually all legitimate economists-- oppose.