Expel and replace

Apr 3rd, 2018 9:35 am | By

Remember how last week, to the surprise of all, Trump joined the UK and other allies in expelling Russian diplomats?

He was just kidding. Russia can totally send new ones to replace the expellees.

Julian Borger is the Guardian’s world affairs editor.

Julian Borger in the Guardian yesterday:

The White House has confirmed that Donald Trump has raised with Vladimir Putin the possibility of a White House summit in the “not-too-distant” future.

The news of a White House invitation, first revealed by the Kremlin, came as the state department confirmed that Russia would be able to replace the diplomats the US expelled last week in response to the nerve agent attack in the UK. Both developments cast doubt on the effectiveness of what the US presented last week as a strong gesture of solidarity with the British government for the attack on the Russian ex-spy living in Salisbury, Sergei Skrypal and his daughter Yulia.

That’s a nice way of putting it. A blunt way of putting it would be that Trump was bullshitting us all last week.

A Putin aide, Yuri Ushakov, told Russian news agencies that Trump made the offer when he called Putin to congratulate him on his election win – a call that caused controversy because Trump’s critics argued that congratulations were inappropriate for elections that few saw as being free and fair, and because of Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria as well as Moscow’s interference in western elections.

Oh that.

Asked about the invitation, the White House spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, issued a statement saying: “As the President himself confirmed on 20 March, hours after his last call with President Putin, the two had discussed a bilateral meeting in the ‘not-too-distant future’ at a number of potential venues, including the White House. We have nothing further to add at this time.”

In other words: shut up, peasants. Question not our motives.



The gang on the annual picnic

Apr 3rd, 2018 9:21 am | By

Taslima asks a pointed question.

I have to say, I’m a little grossed out by all those shameless naked hands poking out. They’re obviously doing it on purpose – carefully pushing their naked nude unclad hands out front so that we can’t not see them. The sluts.



A year and a half of nightmare

Apr 2nd, 2018 5:39 pm | By

Oh, damn, this is heartbreaking and infuriating. Jill McCabe on why she decided to accept the urging to run for state office, and how badly that turned out for them.

I am an emergency room pediatrician and an accidental politician — someone who never thought much about politics until I was recruited to run for state office after making a statement about the importance of expanding Medicaid. That decision — plus some twisted reporting and presidential tweets — ended up costing my husband, Andrew, his job and our family a significant portion of his pension my husband had worked hard for over 21 years of federal service. For the past year and a half of this nightmare, I have not been free to speak out about what happened. Now that Andrew has been fired, I am.

They met as sophomores at Duke. He’s always been a Republican; she’s voted for people in both parties.

As we have raised our children, I tried to vote more regularly and pay more attention to the issues that affect our community. And with my work in a hospital emergency room in Virginia, I saw the impact of how government decisions hurt my patients, especially when the state decided not to accept the federal government’s funding to expand Medicaid.

I was providing care in the most expensive setting — the emergency room — and only once a patient’s condition became more serious, because he or she had no other options. In addition, our state’s decision was increasing the cost of health care for everyone, ultimately raising prices, premiums and taxes, while thousands of patients suffered. The whole thing just made no sense.

In 2014 when some pols came through her hospital a reporter asked her how Medicaid expansion would affect her patients, and apparently as a result people later suggested she run for state Senate.

A few days later, I got another call: Clark Mercer, chief of staff to then-Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, asking me to at least speak to Ralph, who is a pediatric neurologist. I was moved by Ralph’s story about how he had used his medical background to advocate for the needs of the children he serves.

So unlike the corruption and self-interest of some people I can think of.

I started to become more interested, thinking, “Here’s a way I can really try to help people on a bigger scale than what I do every day.” While I was considering the possibility, Andrew and I went to Richmond to meet with various politicians, including then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe. The subject of Hillary Clinton never came up — the story about her emails had not even broken when I was first approached by Northam. All the governor asked of me was that I support Medicaid expansion.

But she was concerned about her husband’s job, and told him she wouldn’t do it if he thought it would be any kind of problem.

(Do I think that’s fair, consistent with feminism, etc? Sure.)

He consulted with the ethics experts at the FBI and committed to follow their advice. We tried to go even beyond what the rules required — Andrew kept himself separate from my campaign. When the kids and I went door-knocking, he did not participate; he wouldn’t even drive us. He could have attended one of my fundraisers but never did. One day he put on a campaign T-shirt so we could take a family picture and share it with my proud parents. You may have seen it — it seems to have taken on a weird life of its own — but that was it, just a family picture at a swim meet.

Meanwhile, my campaign received funding from the state Democratic Party and the governor’s PAC — on par with what other candidates in competitive races on both sides of the aisle received. All those contributions were publicly reported. And of course, again, Clinton’s emails never came up — if they had, I would have found that alarming, immediately reported it and likely pulled out of the campaign. I know enough from being married to Andrew for 20 years to know what is right and what is wrong.

She lost the race. It was disappointing, but she was glad to get back to normal life.

But then in October 2016 a reporter called her asking about contributions to her campaign and whether there had been any influence on her husband’s decisions at the FBI.

This could not be further from the truth. In fact, it makes no sense. Andrew’s involvement in the Clinton investigation came not only after the contributions were made to my campaign but also after the race was over. Since that news report, there have been thousands more, repeating the false allegation that there was some connection between my campaign and my husband’s role at the FBI.

After the 2016 election, I thought for a while that it was all over — at least now that President-elect Trump won, he would stop coming after us. How naive that was. After then-FBI Director James B. Comey was fired, we knew that Andrew could be the next target of the president’s wrath.

And then sure enough Trump started tweeting his lies about both of them.

To have my personal reputation and integrity and those of my family attacked this way is beyond horrible. It feels awful every day. It keeps me up nights. I made the decision to run for office because I was trying to help people. Instead, it turned into something that was used to attack our family, my husband’s career and the entire FBI.

Nothing can prepare you for what happens when your life is turned upside down by current events. Nothing prepares you for conversations you have to have with your teenage children. Nothing prepares you for the news crews staking out your house, your back yard, your place of business. Nothing prepares you for the fear you feel every time you receive a package from a stranger.

I have spent countless hours trying to understand how the president and so many others can share such destructive lies about me. Ultimately I believe it somehow never occurred to them that I could be a serious, independent-minded physician who wanted to run for office for legitimate reasons. They rapidly jumped to the conclusion that I must be corrupt, as part of what I believe to be an effort to vilify us to suit their needs.

I don’t think it’s as respectable as that. I think it’s simply that Trump wanted to harm Andrew McCabe in any way he could, and that’s the way he came up with. He never cared about whether it was true or not; he never does. He just got pissed off, and acted accordingly. That’s what he is.

Throughout this experience, my work has been a sanctuary. I walk into the hospital, and everybody there knows me as a professional. The patients know me as a doctor and not a news story. It is not easy, but I have to put all of our challenges aside to focus on the patients and families I treat.

While I have no intention of running for office again, I believe in what my campaign stood for, and I still hope we can see our way to Medicaid expansion in Virginia. The patients who inspired me to run continue to come to the ER every day, and they need our help.

That’s the woman Donald Trump called a “loser” in a phone call to Andrew McCabe.



Up steps the latest victim

Apr 2nd, 2018 3:37 pm | By

Suzanne Moore has a lot of sympathy for Niall Ferguson and other endangered guys like him.

Up steps the latest victim, poor Niall Ferguson, author, history professor and lover of empire, who wrote in the Sunday Times that he had to endure a “disproportionately vitriolic response” for organising a conference that featured only white male historians. How he has suffered, I can only imagine.

Jordan Peterson, another minor academic, became major simply by outlining how wrong we are to talk of the various ways in which western culture has been deemed oppressive to women. Excuse me, but didn’t Camille Paglia do that 20 years ago?

To such men, any notion of inclusiveness, or of the dread “diversity”, becomes a threat. The very presence of women, except as tokens, is difficult and somehow invasive for such men. Never mind the debate over trans women in women-only spaces, the issue here is really one of any women at all in any space.

The brand of truth-telling these battle-scarred men are revered for situates men as both always naturally in control but as now having to fight for their position.

Or not so much having to fight for their position as having to fight not to hear it. They don’t want to hear it; they’re sick of it; they wish we would shut up already. They don’t hate women, ok? They like women just fine. They try to include some women, when they remember, and it always turns out the women have to polish the baby that day or something so they say no so what are the poor men supposed to do? Think of even more women to invite? That would be a superhuman effort, and no one can expect that – so enough already. We know; everybody knows; we do our best, when we think of it; now stop pointing out how absent-mindedly sexist we still are and let us get on with the conversation we’re having with these nice gentlemen here.

The call to victimhood of this “endangered” species is heard everywhere, from Nigel Farage to John Humphrys to Jeremy Clarkson to Piers Morgan. These men who dare to speak out are everywhere in public life, at the top of every organisation, having meetings about how to employ more women. They are forced into this by Europe, modernity or some godawful HR directive. They like to say they care about FGM or the massacre of the Rohingya, but see complaints about equal access or equal pay as white noise.

Or not so much white noise as excruciatingly irritating high-pitched complaining by ungrateful bitches who weren’t on the list of women they remembered to ask.



Make cars dirty again

Apr 2nd, 2018 3:08 pm | By

Trump and Pruitt are putting their shoulders to the wheel, or their feet to the floor, pushing us to create more and more and more pollution to make American great again.

The Trump administration openly threatened one of the cornerstones of California’s environmental protections Monday, saying that it may revoke the state’s ability under the Clean Air Act to impose stricter standards than the federal government sets for vehicle emissions.

The announcement came as the administration confirmed it is tearing up landmark fuel economy rules pushing automakers to manufacture cleaner burning cars and SUVs.

We want dirtier burning cars, god damn it. Dirt is good. It’s like cowboys n shit.

Pruitt’s announcement said that the administration will abandon the federal goal of having vehicles average 55 miles per gallon by 2025. That target will be replaced with a weaker fuel economy standard that the administration will settle on at a later date.

The action sets up the administration for a confrontation with California and a dozen other states that use the state’s emissions standards. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can independently adopt its own emissions standards, but other states can then adopt them. Several of the states that have done so have vowed to defy the administrations’ effort to weaken mileage standards.

Dianne Feinstein points out that the regulations are working: consumers are getting more efficient cars and saving money on fuel.

But automakers complain they are confronting a market in which gas prices are low and consumers are more interested in purchasing SUVs and pickups than the fuel-efficient passenger vehicles the federal mandates favor.

More interested because automakers advertise them like crazy, and because now that there are so many of them, smaller cars are automatically less safe since they’re so vulnerable to the gas-sucking behemoths. None of this was inevitable, it was a marketing decision – the profit on the gas-suckers is much higher.

Industry officials and analysts note that electric cars and hybrids account for just 3% of vehicle sales in the United States, even as they are taking off in other countries. Environmentalists blame the companies, saying they are putting too much of their marketing and product development energy into SUVs.

It’s what makes America great: selling useless or harmful shit for the big bucks without giving a thought to bad consequences.



Pig and cover

Apr 2nd, 2018 11:28 am | By

Ah maybe now we know why Trump was in such a Mood this morning.

He won’t be framing that and hanging it on the walls of his golf resorts.



Pale

Apr 2nd, 2018 11:23 am | By

Class photo time again: Trump with the spring class of White House interns:

That’s nearly 100 people; I think I found four who are not white.

Also, how weird is it that all the women have the Trump-women look? The long hair worn down over the shoulders in front in the manner of Princess Ivanka – every single female person in the photo is wearing her hair that way. As a female person who had long hair in her youth I can tell you that’s not a natural or default way to wear long hair; the natural thing is to pull it all back out of the way and just leave it there. It’s weird to drape some of it over your front as if it were fabric. But then long hair gets to be a nuisance in the end, just another way “feminine” presentation is designed to hobble women via inconvenience.

Anyway. Classy diversity there, Trumpies.



A remarkably dim view of Trump’s intellect

Apr 2nd, 2018 10:53 am | By

Aaron Blake at the Post points out the undeniable fact that people who work for Trump know full well how thick he is.

Lost in the debate over whether President Trump should talk to Robert Mueller is this: The arguments against him doing it often betray a remarkably dim view of Trump’s intellect.

They do, of course. How could they not? Trump makes it blindingly obvious every time he opens his mouth or punches the buttons on his phone that he has no filter, aka is too stupid and heedless to discipline himself even in a situation of legal peril. That’s a remarkable fact, for sure, and with any luck it will soon cause him to perjure himself in his chat with Mueller.

Chris Christie on the TV News made it a matter of marketing skills versus talking to prosecutors skills.

He should never walk into that room with Robert Mueller. Because in the end, one of the things that makes the president who he is, is that he’s a salesman. And salesmen, at times, tend to be hyperbolic. Right, and this president certainly has tended to do that.

That’s okay when you’re on the campaign hustle. That’s okay when you’re working on Congress. It is not okay when you’re sitting talking to federal agents because, you know, 18 USC 1001 is false statements to federal agents. That’s a crime. That can send you to jail.

What’s left implicit is that Trump is too stupid to code-switch from real estate hack to president being questioned about illegal actions.

Christie on Sunday basically came out and said what everyone is saying behind closed doors. In the debate over whether Trump is a habitual fabulist or just a strategic one, Christie seems to be coming down on the side of the former. He seems to confirm that Trump doesn’t really know what the truth is.

Which is odd when you remember how readily and often he accuses other people of lying.



Let the eggs roll where they will

Apr 2nd, 2018 9:46 am | By

What happens when you let your attention wander for a minute and you elect a toddler to be chief executive of a country with a huge nuclear arsenal:

When Donald Trump was elected president, it quickly became obvious that the traditional national-security briefing a person in his position receives daily would be well beyond his zone of proximal development. The briefings were slimmed down in length, chopped up into easy-to-digest bullet points, and decorated with lots of graphs and pictures. Alas, the Washington Post reports, even the kiddie version of the presidential brief has proven too challenging. Now, Trump gets his briefing verbally.

Michael Wolf is very clear on this in Fire and Fury: Trump won’t read and he won’t listen either.

Trump, the Post reports, “has opted to rely on an oral briefing of select intelligence issues” because reading the brief — which every president has been able to do since its existence began — “is not Trump’s preferred ‘style of learning,’ according to a person with knowledge of the situation.”

Also, Trump does not receive his verbal briefing daily, but instead “about every two to three days on average in recent months, typically around 11 a.m.” That’s when “executive time” ends and Trump has to turn off Fox News to listen to officials for a while, before he gets more screen time later in the day.

So every 3 days or so someone tries to tell Trump a few things, but it’s futile because Trump doesn’t listen. He talks about whatever pops into his head, while the briefers try to use the few minutes left to tell him things, but he doesn’t listen.

Today’s burst of tweets is exceptionally scattershot-plus-obsessive:

An hour later:

Another hour later:

An hour later again:

Scare quotes on the Department of Justice, that’s part of the executive branch, and part of his cabinet.

Then a couple of hours after all that:

Have a productive week.



Leo Igwe on humanism for Africa

Apr 1st, 2018 5:29 pm | By

Here is Leo Igwe’s talk at a TED conference.

As a humanist, Leo Igwe doesn’t believe in divine intervention — but he does believe in the power of human beings to alleviate suffering, cure disease, preserve the planet and turn situations of poverty into prosperity. In this bold talk, Igwe shares how humanism can free Africans from damaging superstitions and give them the power to rebuild the continent.

This talk was presented at an official TED conference, and was featured by our editors on the home page.



The oppression of the white man

Apr 1st, 2018 5:17 pm | By

Niall Ferguson feels put upon.

First sentence of his Times (the London one) piece explaining why he feels put upon:

It is not very fashionable to be a man these days, especially a white one.

Really? In what sense? Have men lost all their power, their privilege, their advantage over women?

Of fucking course not. What he means is that many of us have noticed the advantage and are trying to make things less unbalanced in the direction of always calling a man. He feels aggrieved because we’re no longer just taking it for granted that men should dominate everything and women should be an afterthought at best.

Last month I organised a small, invitation-only conference of historians who I knew shared my interest in trying to apply historical knowledge to contemporary policy problems. Five of the people I invited to give papers were women, but none was able to attend. I should have tried harder to find other female speakers, no doubt. But my failure to do so elicited a disproportionately vitriolic response.

Who gets to decide what is “proportionate” in these situations? Eh? Who gets to decide how annoyed we’re allowed to be when Michael Shermer says “it’s more of a guy thing” or Sam Harris talks about “that estrogen vibe” or conference after conference after conference somehow forgets to invite any women, or remembers to invite a couple but then is left in a condition of helpless bewilderment when those two say no, and can’t manage to figure out how to find more women to invite until some say yes? Who? Niall Ferguson? Why should he get to decide? He’s not a member of the class that’s been forgotten all this time, so why is it up to him to say how much and how crossly we can talk about it?

Under a headline that included the words “Too white and too male”, The New York Times published photographs of all the speakers as if to shame them for having participated. Around a dozen academics took to social media to call the conference a “StanfordSausageFest”.

Well obviously much more shocking and outrageous than the mere fact that women and non-white people were shut out of his conference. Oh no, the Times ran a story about it!

Now let’s be clear. As I recently and rather vehemently explained to the novelist Will Self, I was raised to believe in the equal rights of all people, regardless of sex, race, creed or any other difference. That the human past was characterised by discrimination of many kinds is not news to me. But does it really constitute progress if the proponents of diversity resort to the behaviour that was previously the preserve of sexists and racists? Publishing the names and mugshots of conference speakers is the kind of thing anti-semites once did to condemn the “over-representation” of Jewish people in academia. Terms such as “SausageFest” belong not in civil academic discourse but in the pages of male-chauvinist comics such as Viz.

Oh well if he vehemently explained it to the novelist Will Self, there’s no more to be said, is there. He knows. We don’t need to tell him; he’s aware. He’s not aware of how ludicrous he sounds pretending to think publishing photos of the invited men in the Times is akin to what anti-semites used to do, but he totally is aware the human past was characterised by discrimination of many kinds. Isn’t that enough?!! What kind of fanatic would expect him to act on the awareness? It’s political correctness run mad.

What we see here is the sexism of the anti-sexists; the racism of the anti-racists.

Oh, clever, no one has ever said that before!

There’s more, but it’s no better than the rest.



Bots stand with Laura

Apr 1st, 2018 4:41 pm | By

Russian bots are springing to the defense of Fox bully Laura Ingraham, according to Business Insider.

As companies yank their ads from Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham’s show in droves, she continues to draw support from one key Twitter demographic: Russian bots.

The advertiser exodus comes after Ingraham insulted Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg’s grades on Twitter. The Fox News host announced Saturday that she would be taking a “pre-planned vacation” amid the controversy.

“Controversy” is too dignified for it. She’s a grown-ass adult who didn’t just see a bunch of her friends shot to death and felt entitled to bully a teenager who did. That’s not a controversy, it’s just hateful mindless shitty bullying in the style of Donald Trump.

On Saturday evening, #istandwithlaura was the top trending hashtag among Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations, according to Hamilton 68, a website launched last year that tracks Russian propaganda campaigns in near-real time.

Per the site’s data, the frequency with which the accounts tweeted the hashtag jumped by 2800% on Friday and Saturday.

“This is why we can’t have nice things” is not a joke any more. It’s the literal flat-footed truth.



Will you look at that

Apr 1st, 2018 4:13 pm | By

Photo of the day. Or week, or year.



Deep broadcast

Apr 1st, 2018 10:56 am | By

Another part of the takeover:

Seattle-based ABC affiliate KOMO-TV says its owner, the conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, is forcing its reporters to air pre-scripted segments about fake news media, in an attempt to undermine non-Sinclair stations.

Sinclair has long produced “must-run” segments for its stations, dispersing them to its various subsidiaries and requiring the local stations to run controversial, typically conservative commentary promos alongside their regular news coverage. However, in recent weeks, it’s begun turning its sights on the competition, throwing in mentions of “fake news,” among other things.

In other words it’s helping Trump’s authoritarian attacks on independent journalism.

“The promos, which began airing on the station last week, are part of a Sinclair campaign that forces local anchors to read Sinclair-written scripts warning of the dangers of ‘one-sided news stories plaguing our country,’” the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on Thursday.

The Post-Intelligencer published one of the scripts this week; in it, the authors lament the “trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories” and the “sharing of biased and false news,” referencing President Trump’s preferred term for the press, “fake news.”

The script begins:

Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces.

(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories… stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.

(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

Which is kind of funny, given that this is a script written by the corporation, not by journalists. The script itself is fake news, because it puts words in the mouths of the unwilling presenters.

According to the Post-Intelligencer, employees at Sinclair-owned stations were upset about the script.

“They’re certainly not happy about it. It’s certainly a forced thing,” one KOMO employee told the outlet.

So, that’s fake right there. It’s a forced thing, so what they’re saying, using “we” and “our,” is fake.

Sinclair regularly runs disinformation segments favorable to President Trump: one of its staples is a recurring pre-taped segment featuring Sinclair’s chief political analyst, Russian-born former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn. As ThinkProgress previously reported, those segments frequently include misleading talking points and misinformation from the Trump administration, packaged as actual political analysis and news coverage.

Another previously recurring segment, “Behind the Headlines” with Mark Hyman, Sinclair’s vice president for corporate relations, frequently parroted administration talking points on controversial subjects like health care, immigration, free speech, and extremism, functioning as right-wing and white nationalist propaganda.

More recently, Sinclair pushed a must-run segment featuring former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka complaining about the existence of the so-called “Deep State,” and unelected group of government officials who are supposedly manipulating policy and controlling the public narrative. The segment was reportedly produced by Sinclair national correspondent Kristine Frazao, who previously worked at Russian state-run media outlet RT.

Uh…that’s astounding.

In December, the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, admitted that the Trump campaign had struck a deal with Sinclair during the 2016 election in order to obtain more favorable coverage. Scott Livingston, Sinclair’s vice president of news, later told Politico that the company had offered a similar deal to Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, but said that Clinton declined.

What was that in the forced script again?

(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

Like for instance striking “deals” with presidential candidates to offer more favorable coverage.



Far-reaching implications

Apr 1st, 2018 10:24 am | By

Jennifer Rubin at the Post on the emoluments case ruling that granted standing:

In a decision with far-reaching implications for President Trump, a federal court ruled this week that a lawsuit could go forward claiming he unconstitutionally received foreign emoluments — that is, monies from foreign governments explicitly prohibited by the Constitution — from his hotel in Washington. The Associated Press reported:

A federal judge Wednesday allowed Maryland and the District of Columbia to proceed with their lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of accepting unconstitutional gifts from foreign interests, but limited the case to the president’s involvement with the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

There are other hurdles but that was the biggest one.

If Maryland and the District are successful, Trump may be ordered to do something he has so far avoided and which spineless Republicans have refused to demand — namely, disclose what his businesses receive from foreign governments, and either permanently jettison his ties to those operations or reject payments and other things of value from foreign governments (e.g. trademarks in China).

But that would be treating him like everyone else, and he won’t stand for it. He’ll either quit or spontaneously combust.

Rubin talked to Norm Eisen and Laurence Tribe about the case. RT=Rubin (her blog/column is Right Turn).

RT: Why did this case make it past the first hurdle and not the New York case? Will the New York case be appealed?

TRIBE: We are appealing the decision in the Southern District of New York dismissing our suit there. One reason for the different results is that Judge Messitte considered but rejected as wrong some of the grounds Judge Daniels erroneously gave for dismissing the SDNY case. In particular, Judge Messitte correctly rejected Judge Daniels’s conclusion that because Trump’s patrons chose to stay at his hotel, there was nothing a court could do to redress the injuries caused by the emoluments violations; he also rejected Judge Daniels’s conclusion that only Congress, and not the courts, could enforce the foreign emoluments clause. Judge Messitte’s rejection of these key conclusions from Judge Daniels suggests that the appeals court in New York could similarly reject those arguments. Further, the cases involve different plaintiffs, and as Judge Messitte recognized, the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland are not typical litigants: They are afforded “special solicitude.” That means a lower hurdle to jump to prove standing.

RTWhat is the significance of suing in Trump’s personal capacity?

EISEN: At oral argument, Judge Messitte recognized the emoluments clauses present a unique question among constitutional provisions. Unlike nearly all other provisions which involve the exercise of government authority, the emoluments clauses govern the public and private behavior of officers as an obligation of their office. Adding a claim against the president in his personal capacity helps ensure that the court will be able to reach the full scope of the his transgressions and maximizes the chance of success as the case proceeds.

Plus, also, besides, it’s Trump wot done it. It’s personal, man. (Not a legal opinion, just mouthing off.)



Self-defining

Apr 1st, 2018 9:52 am | By

Benjamin Butterworth at Pink News yesterday:

Labour’s shadow equalities minister hosted a string of anti-trans activists in parliament for an official meeting on ‘trans inclusion’, PinkNews has learned.

Dawn Butler, Labour’s lead MP on LGBT rights, met with activists opposed to transgender women being included on all women shortlists in an official capacity on Wednesday.

A spokesperson for the Labour Party told PinkNews: “All women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.

“The Labour Party recognises the vital importance of self-declaration for the Trans community, which is why we are calling on the Government to reform the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010 to change the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ to ‘gender identity’ to support self-declaration.”

Labour is currently facing legal action from activists opposed to transgender women being allowed to participate in women’s reserved spaces.

After a surge in anti-trans rhetoric, a fringe group of women’s rights campaigners within the party led calls for transgender women to be banned from standing on women-only shortlists for parliament, which are used in a bid to boost the number of female MPs.

There has never been an openly trans MP, but vocal activists complain that women they refer to as “male-bodied transgenders” are taking away women’s places in politics.

A leaked copy of Labour’s proposed policy on trans women, expected to be adopted in May, explicitly affirms that “All Women Shortlists and women’s reserved places are open to self-defining women”.

Now we go back 6 years to March 2012.

No automatic alt text available.

No automatic alt text available.

Image may contain: text



He comes from Serious Criminal Law Land

Mar 31st, 2018 4:23 pm | By

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on what Trump’s inability to get good lawyers to work for him has revealed about the US legal system.

The ongoing and increasingly worrying problem for Trump is that he has lived for so long in the world of rich-man business-mogul law that his conception of lawyers and lawyering is badly skewed. He genuinely believes that attorneys like Michael Cohen—who is now embroiled in a wrestling match with a pugnacious Stormy Daniels and her lawyer—and Marc Kasowitz—who has represented Trump in litigation ranging from his divorce and bankruptcy proceedings to the Trump University lawsuit—can handle any type of legal proceeding…What’s really new here isn’t so much that no serious lawyer wants to work for Donald Trump; we’ve known that for more than a year. The revelation is that corporate America is built less on a formal system of laws and rules and norms than on an elaborate and expensive set of mechanisms for getting around that formal system.

In New York Real Estate Land, Multiple Divorce Land, and Repeated Bankruptcy Land, one can string together a lifetime’s worth of mandatory arbitration clauses, nondisclosure agreements, prenups, and frivolous lawsuits. The only legal system Trump can comprehend—and the only legal system the Cohens and the Kasowitzes are good at navigating—is one that consists entirely of loopholes and workarounds. That system, which runs on threats and intimidation and huge sums of cash, has made a lot of men who look and sound like Donald Trump obscenely wealthy. It is, like it or lump it, the American way.

It’s lump it, then, because I sure as hell don’t like it.

Robert Mueller doesn’t practice rich white guy law, and he didn’t cut his teeth in Alito Land. He comes from Serious Criminal Law Land, which adheres to precedents and principles over and above what powerful men can contract around. Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, and the myriad lawyers who have said “no” to Donald Trump are, on balance, Republicans and small-c conservatives. But they don’t believe the rule of law exists to enrich their bosses, and they don’t believe you can buy or bully your way out of that fact.

Trump doesn’t know how to deal with Serious Criminal Law Land. He can’t keep anybody from that world on his payroll, and nobody from that world is eager to tag in now. That’s why he’s kept his “fixer”—Michael Cohen—and glommed onto the likes of Jay Sekulow.

Why wouldn’t serious criminal lawyers rush to take a seat at Trump’s counsel table? One after the other has said that the notion of representing a man who doesn’t take legal advice, insists he is his own master legal tactician, and is likely to fire you at 5 a.m. in a tweet is not a smart career move. Ted Boutrous, a prominent lawyer at Ted Olson’s firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, told CNN that the president is a “notoriously difficult client who disregards the advice of his lawyers and asks them to engage in questionable activities.” Lawyers, especially inside-the-Beltway lawyers, trade in decadeslong relationships that put courts and law before any one case. The prospect of blowing up a lifetime of professional goodwill for a three-week stint working for a ticking time bomb of potential liability probably isn’t an attractive prospect.

The question isn’t why wouldn’t they but why would they.

Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel in the Obama era, told us that lawyers “are understandably wary of Trump as a client: he has unreasonable expectations (Fire Mueller! Tell Sessions to ignore the recusal rules!), he abuses them verbally, interviews their replacements behind their backs, and to top it off, the kind of lawyer he likes should be prepared to advance personal funds and tell tall tales to cover up extramarital trysts.” Bauer added that, on the pro side, “it is probably a memorable professional experience.” Also, “they might even get the chance to testify before a grand jury.”

Perhaps that’s the simplest answer to the mystery of Trump’s missing lawyers. Work for the president, and you might soon wind up in front of a grand jury getting grilled by Bob Mueller. That might make for exceptional reality television. It doesn’t look so good on a résumé.

Not worth it for only one scoop of ice cream.



Fewer than 100 returned

Mar 31st, 2018 12:35 pm | By

The Guardian reported on the march in memory of Mireille Knoll on Wednesday.

Silent marches are taking place in Paris and other large French cities in memory of an 85-year-old woman who survived the Holocaust but was stabbed to death last week, in what is being investigated as an antisemitic attack.

A huge crowd walks during a silent march in Paris, France, in commemoration of 85-year-old Jewish woman Mireille Knoll

Photograph: Yoan Valat/EPA

After killing Mireille Knoll, her attackers set her local authority flat alight in a poor area of the French capital. Two men, aged 22 and 29 – one of them a neighbour known to the victim since he was a child, have been arrested and placed under formal investigation.

Family members and friends gather at the funeral of Mireille Knoll, who was stabbed to death in her home

Photograph: Christophe Ena/AP

Other marches were due to be held in the French cities of Lyon, Marseille and Strasbourg.

Knoll fled occupied Paris at the age of nine, narrowly escaping the infamous Vel d’Hiv roundup of Jewish families by French police on behalf of the Nazis. Around 13,000 people, including more than 4,000 children, were herded into the Vel d’Hiv velodrome in Drancy, a northeastern suburb of the French capital, in 1942. They were then deported to Auschwitz – fewer than 100 returned.

After travelling to southern Europe and then Canada, Knoll returned to Paris. Even after her grandchildren moved to Israel, she remained.

Mirellie Knoll



Not great

Mar 31st, 2018 12:24 pm | By

More on the murder of Mireille Knoll:

An 85-year-old woman who as a child narrowly escaped France’s most notorious wartime roundup of Jews has been murdered in Paris, and the authorities are calling it a hate crime.

The body of the woman, Mireille Knoll, was found on Friday in her apartment in the city’s working-class 11th Arrondissement.

Thomas Samson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

That’s the building – an ordinary council block.

Ms. Knoll was a child in Paris when, in the summer of 1942, the French police, cooperating with the Germans, rounded up thousands of the city’s Jews, stuffing them into a cycling stadium, the Vélodrome d’Hiver. Virtually all were subsequently murdered at Auschwitz.

Ms. Knoll’s mother, summoned to the stadium like other Parisian Jews, was able to escape at the last minute with her daughter because she had a Brazilian passport, said Meyer Habib, a member of Parliament who has spoken with one of Ms. Knoll’s sons.

A number of anti-Semitic episodes have shaken France, including the murder last year of Sarah Halimi, an elderly Jewish woman, by a man of Malian origin who shouted, “God is great” before throwing her out a window.

If God were really great, God wouldn’t inspire people to murder elderly women while shouting about how great God is. The God in that sentence is evil.

Other anti-Semitic crimes that have rattled France include the 2015 attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris by Amedy Coulibaly, a heavily armed Frenchman, who killed four people, and the 2012 assault on a Jewish school in Toulouse by Mohammed Merah, who killed three children and a teacher after killing three soldiers.

Coulibaly was working with the Kouachi brothers, who slaughtered 12 people in and near the offices of Charlie Hebdo. There’s video of one of them shouting “Allahu akbar” in the street shortly before killing a cop…who happened to be Muslim.



Mireille Knoll

Mar 31st, 2018 12:06 pm | By

A horror in Paris:

Every morning, in a part of the 11th Arrondissement of Paris that has not yet gentrified, Mireille Knoll would sit at home watching television as she waited for her personal care aide.

The aide, Leila Dessante, would clean the small second-floor apartment, cook lunch and keep company with Ms. Knoll, a 85-year-old grandmother and Holocaust survivor. “She would take my face in between her hands and always ask, ‘How are you doing today, sweetheart?’” Ms. Dessante recalled on Wednesday.

Ms. Knoll’s gentle routine was brutally interrupted last week when she was killed in her apartment. The attack shocked her neighbors, France’s Jewish community and the country as a whole. Two suspects, men in their 20s, have been placed under formal investigation on charges of murder with an anti-Semitic motive.

Édouard Philippe, the prime minister, cited a strain of anti-Semitism in France that shape-shifts but doesn’t go away. (France is not alone in that.)

“She survived the Holocaust in the last century, I think she had a happy life, and yet she was killed at home in 2018, frail, and defenseless,” Ms. Dessante said as she was leaving Ms. Knoll’s apartment building after laying flowers on the doorstep. “What world are we living in?”

A bad one. Not as bad as during the Holocaust, but still bad; one in which hatred and rage have become a popular sport.

Thousands gathered in Paris on Wednesday to honor Ms. Knoll, marching from the Place de la Nation, on the eastern side of the capital, to her apartment building, a nondescript housing block where mourners had placed candles and flowers on the railings.

Many marched in silence, waving French flags or wearing badges with a picture of Ms. Knoll. Samuel Cohen, 74, who was at the march with his wife, Léa, 70, was one of several who carried a sign that read, “In France, we kill grandmothers because they’re Jewish.”

Ms. Knoll was stabbed 11 times, and her body was found partly burned after her attackers tried to set her apartment on fire. One suspect was a neighbor who had often been hosted by Ms. Knoll, while the other was a homeless friend of his.

An official close to the investigation, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case, said that the friend had told investigators that he had heard Ms. Knoll’s neighbor say “God is great” in Arabic during the killing. But the official said the two suspects had given conflicting statements to the police.

Damn it to hell. She must have been terrified.

A picture of Ms. Knoll on a fence outside her building.

CreditLionel Bonaventure/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The authorities say it may have started as a robbery.

But they have also characterized the attack as a worrying sign of anti-Semitism in France, which has been shaken by several recent episodes, including the killing last year of another elderly Jewish woman, Sarah Halimi, which the authorities were much slower to characterize as anti-Semitic.

Gérard Collomb, the interior minister, said on Tuesday that one of the suspects in Ms. Knoll’s murder had told the other, “She is a Jew, she must have money.”

Her son Daniel was not immediately reachable on Wednesday, but in interviews with the French news media he described his mother, who had Parkinson’s disease, as a woman of limited means and boundless generosity.

“Everybody came to see her,” Mr. Knoll told Europe 1 radio. ”If she could have, she would have welcomed the entire world into her home.”

President Emmanuel Macron referred to Ms. Knoll’s killing at a ceremony on Wednesday morning that paid tribute to Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame and to the other victims of a terrorist attack in southern France last week.

France “is confronted today with a barbaric obscurantism, with the only goal of eliminating our liberties and our solidarities,” Mr. Macron said, drawing a parallel between the “terrorist in Trèbes” and Ms. Knoll’s killer, “who assassinated an innocent and vulnerable woman because she was Jewish.”

Mr. Macron attended Ms. Knoll’s funeral later on Wednesday, according to the Élysée Palace.

In an interview, Meyer Habib, a Franco-Israeli lawmaker in the National Assembly, said that “in the same day, I have a ceremony for a hero who gave his life to save a hostage, then I attend the funeral of an 85-year-old lady who was killed because she was a Jew, and then I’m going to honor her memory at a march.”

“That’s my schedule today, and I don’t find it normal,” he said.

Non, ce n’est pas normal.