If tweets can get tenured academics bullied out of their jobs then why can’t they get presidents scolded out of theirs?

The last 12 months have seen one controversy after another over the tweets of George Ciccariello-Maher, an associate professor of politics and global studies at Drexel University. In a series of incidents, he has made statements that led to calls for his dismissal. In several instances, the university has criticized him. Ciccariello-Maher and his supporters have said that his comments have been distorted and that his academic freedom has been attacked.

On Thursday, he announced on Twitter that he was leaving his tenured job at Drexel. “After nearly a year of harassment by right-wing, white supremacist media outlets and internet mobs, after death threats and threats of violence directed against me and my family, my situation has become unsustainable,” he wrote on Twitter. “Staying at Drexel in the eye of this storm has become detrimental to my own writing, speaking and organizing.”

He pointed out that tenure isn’t much protection against that kind of thing.

He added, “In the past year, the forces of resurgent white supremacy have tasted blood and are howling for more. Given the pressure they will continue to apply, university communities must form a common front against the most reprehensible forces in society and refuse to bow to their pressure, intimidation and threats. Only then will universities stand any chance of survival.”

Crap writer though, isn’t he. Way too many stale off-the-shelf phrases in that passage. C minus.

The controversy over the professor started Dec. 24, 2016, when Ciccariello-Maher tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.” The tweet went viral, with many conservative websites calling for Drexel to fire Ciccariello-Maher. Drexel condemned the tweet but didn’t fire him.

Ciccariello-Maher and his supporters said that the irony and purpose of his tweet were lost on many. Ciccariello-Maher argues that white genocide doesn’t exist, and is a false image used by the far right to scare white people. So he says he was making a point, not calling for anyone to be hurt.

In April, Ciccariello-Maher was again in the news when he tweeted about his reaction when he saw a passenger in first class give up his seat on a flight. “Some guy in first class gave up his seat for a uniformed soldier. People are thanking him. I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul.”

Not a very thoughtful remark. Mosul was Trump’s doing, not a random soldier’s. Then again I suspect everyone (except perhaps the soldier) was all too quietly self-congratulatory about it, and being on a plane is bad enough as it is – and besides it’s not something that should get him hounded out of his job. Now about that guy in the Oval Office…

Jennifer Rubin at the Post says it’s a stunt.

The move by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) marks a major escalation in conservatives’ challenges to the FBI’s credibility as the agency investigates whether any Trump associates committed crimes. Another Republican, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), joined in the letter to the Justice Department.

Their letter makes what is called a criminal referral to the Justice Department, suggesting it investigate the dossier author, former British spy Christopher Steele, for possibly lying to the FBI. It is a crime to lie to FBI agents about a material fact relevant to an ongoing investigation.

This is an outrageous political stunt, one with no legal ramifications and obviously designed to take the heat off the White House as damning reports bolstering an obstruction-of-justice claim and questioning the president’s mental fitness have sent the White House spinning.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former prosecutor, tells me, “I cannot understand why it would be necessary for members of Congress to make a criminal referral to the FBI concerning information we know the FBI already has.”

Reason not the need; maybe they did it for the sheer joy of the thing.

Moreover, the statute that Grassley and Graham cite — 18. U.S.C. 1001 — requires that a misstatement be intentionally wrong and material. It is ironic that the Justice Committee chairman who witnessed now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeatedly make false statements under oath would ignore these misstatements of fact and choose instead to vaguely point to ones apparently made to other people.

Her emails! Clinton Foundation! Comey leaked his own memos! Squawwwwwwk!

Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, tells me: “Just once, I’d like to see the Chairman express concern about the link between the sitting President’s campaign and a hostile foreign government, rather than calling for investigations either of people looking into that link or of a woman who may be the world’s most investigated human, hasn’t been in government for 5 years, and isn’t running for anything.”

…

“I know of no basis for believing that Steele may have lied to the FBI and thus no basis for the Grassley/Graham referral.,” says constitutional lawyer Laurence H. Tribe. “I’ve been following this closely and am also unaware of any basis for Senators Grassley or Graham to suspect such lying. Thus it’s hard not to view this referral as an abuse of power designed to undermine and thus obstruct the Mueller investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia in last year’s presidential election.”

Trump is dragging them down with him.

In case we still haven’t had enough farcical distraction yet, here’s another installment:

More than a year after Republican leaders promised to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election, two influential Republicans on Friday made the first known congressional criminal referral in connection with the meddling — against one of the people who sought to expose it.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a senior committee member, told the Justice Department they had reason to believe that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier, and they urged the department to investigate. The committee is running one of three congressional investigations into Russian election meddling, and its inquiry has come to focus, in part, on Mr. Steele’s explosive dossier that purported to detail Russia’s interference and the Trump campaign’s complicity.

That’s the ticket! Never mind the Russian role in the election, never mind Trump and Gang’s collusion, go after a guy who pointed it out! Public spirit at its finest.

The decision by Mr. Grassley and Mr. Graham to single out the former intelligence officer behind the dossier — and not anyone who may have taken part in the Russian interference — infuriated Democrats and raised the stakes in the growing partisan battle over the investigations into Mr. Trump, his campaign team and Russia.

Oh no, I’m sure their motives are far above any kind of partisan bias.

Don’s attempts to make that Wolff guy go away aren’t working out for him.

The author of a scathing new book about President Trump said on Friday that the president’s attempt to block its publication would not only help with sales but would also confirm the book’s key finding: Mr. Trump is unfit for office.

Speaking on the “Today” show, Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” called the administration’s attempt to block the book “extraordinary” and dismissed the president’s criticisms of him out of hand.

“My credibility is being questioned by a man who has less credibility than, perhaps, anyone who has ever walked on earth at this point,” Mr. Wolff said.

Or to put it another way, more negative credibility – more confidence that he is not credible. That’s easier to argue, because now with more billions of people and far more ways of spreading information all over the globe instantaneously, Don probably does have more negative credibility than any one person has ever had before.

Mr. Wolff characterized the book as an investigation of what it was like to work with Mr. Trump. He wrote that the president’s associates called him a “moron” and an “idiot,” and almost unanimously described him as being “like a child.”

“What they mean by that is he has a need for immediate gratification,” Mr. Wolff said. “It’s all about him.”

We can see that ourselves without even working with him; he illustrates it on Twitter several times a day.

On Thursday, a lawyer for the president sent an 11-page letter to the book’s publisher, Henry Holt and Co., saying that it included false statements about the president that “give rise to claims of libel.”

In reaction, the publisher moved up the release date. Originally scheduled for a Tuesday debut, “Fire and Fury” was made available early Friday morning.

“We see ‘Fire and Fury’ as an extraordinary contribution to our national discourse, and are proceeding with the publication of the book,” the publisher said in a statement.

So that went well.

There are people who say Wolff is not notable for accuracy.

Others have said that the book, while filled with new and lurid details, corroborates previous reporting about the Trump White House. Writing in The Atlantic on Thursday, James Fallows, a former Carter administration official and prominent critic of Mr. Trump, called the book’s details “unforgettable and potentially historic.”

“We’ll see how many of them fully stand up, and in what particulars, but even at a heavy discount, it’s a remarkable tale,” he said.

Is Trump batshit crazy cubed, or only squared? Time will tell, or not.

Walter Shaub, former Director of the Office of Government Ethics, on Twitter this morning:

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/949260106314772480

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/949260595857158144

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/949260905174401024

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/949261034392641536

Then he went on CNN to talk about it.

"I don't have words I can use on TV this morning to describe how angry I am to learn this," says ex-Office of Gov't Ethics director Walter Shaub of reports Trump ordered WH lawyer to stop Sessions from recusing himself from Russia investigation https://t.co/hNuTwtVQBl

— CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt (@CNNThisMorning) January 5, 2018

Barry Duke at the Freethinker tells us that Donnie sent a mash note to a risible prosperity gospel preacher a few months ago.

[Kenneth] Copeland revealed on Facebook at the end of December 2017 that he received a letter from the deranged Trump in August. Trump wrote:

Melania and I send our warmest wishes as you celebrate 50 years of ministry. For half a century, you have devoted your life to faith and humanity. Your enduring commitment to spreading the word of God has influenced the lives of people across the United States and around the world.

We hope your heart is filled with joy, knowing your efforts to spread a message of hope are an inspiration to people who seek the love and mercy of the Lord. Congratulations on this remarkable achievement.

Copeland, who long drawn criticism for his teachings that God wants Christians to be rich, was among a group of religious leaders who prayed over Trump in 2015 prior to his election.

Yeah Trump didn’t write that, and he didn’t dictate it either. He dictated the thing about Bannon losing his job and also his mind; he didn’t write that tripe about the luv and mursee of the lord.

Copeland and his wife were also among those who agreed to be on Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Board, which includes some of the most egregious bigots in America, such as radio host and psychologist Dr James Dobson; Jerry Falwell, President of the Liberty University; and Paula White of the New Destiny Christian Center (who chairs the advisory board and is stated to be Trump’s closest religious advisor).

So they’re cool with the pussygrabber? Interesting.

I wrote about Trump & Xmas for the Freeth last week.

One item from the Times story on Bannon and the Wolff book needs to stand on its own.

The book presents Mr. Trump as an ill-informed and thoroughly unserious candidate and president, engaged mainly in satisfying his own ego. It reports that early in the campaign, one aide, Sam Nunberg, was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment,” it quoted Mr. Nunberg as saying, “before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Not a child in school itching to go outside and run around. Not an undergraduate too hungover to pay attention. Not a random asshole on Twitter. A grown-ass adult running for president who couldn’t be bothered to learn about the Constitution.

The Times says it’s all over between Don and Steve.

President Trump essentially excommunicated his onetime chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, from his political circle on Wednesday, excoriating him as a self-promoting exaggerator who had “very little to do with our historic victory” and has now “lost his mind.”

In a written statement brimming with anger and resentment, Mr. Trump fired back at Mr. Bannon, who had made caustic comments about the president and his family to the author of a new book about the Trump White House. While Mr. Bannon had remained in touch with Mr. Trump even after being pushed out of the White House last summer, the two now appear to have reached a breaking point.

Don threw away the friendship bracelet Steve gave him.

Mr. Trump berated Mr. Bannon for the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama and said the former adviser did not represent his base but was “only in it for himself.”

I know, right? There’s just nothing quite like the way Don rages at people for being exactly like him. It was just four days ago that Don was milking the presidency (at our expense) to get higher prices for his party at Mar-a-Lago, but today he’s complaining that some other guy was “only in it for himself.”

“Steve pretends to be at war with the media, which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was,” he added. “It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”

Ok Don, one, then why did you hire him? Doesn’t say much for your ability to judge character, does it. If he does nothing well except make himself look important, why did you give him the job?

And two, you’re the guy who’s always yipping about loyalty, but look at you, talking public smack about a former buddy while everyone watches. Have you thought about what this tells all your other employees? Good luck when they start heading for the doors.

The Post says the working class is protesting in Iran, to the alarm of the mullahs.

“The rebuke both from the urban poor and more religious cities in Iran should be a wake-up call” to the Iranian leadership, said Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.

In the past week, there were echoes of the mass demonstrations that flared in 2009 after reformist political candidates were defeated in disputed presidential election: women pulling off headscarves, fist-pumping crowds, chants against Khamenei.

But unlike that earlier, largely middle-class movement centered in Tehran, the recent demonstrations are drawing heavily upon lower-income youths in religious cities and rural towns. In some cases, protesters have attacked police stations and government buildings.

That’s their “base” turning against them.

Iran’s conservatives have long counted on rural constituencies as a bulwark against the middle-class city-dwellers, who represent the base of support for reformists.

Even rural constituencies can rebel.

Originally a comment by iknklast on Aw, another rift.

forgotten men and women of this country

Honestly, I am so sick of this phrase. No one has forgotten these people; they would never let us. They make more noise, and get more attention than any other group. Bernie Sanders suggested putting up a pro-life Democrat to make these people happy. Every pundit across the spectrum has been saying for at least the past 5 election cycles that these are the people we should be pandering to, instead of “identity politics”, which means, in translation, we should be continuing to ensure that white midwesterners who are Christian and anti-feminist, who are pro-life and pro-Jesus, should continue to run the country (as they have been doing for most of history).

From me to Donald Trump: Yo, Donnie! Your base is not forgotten! Your base was never forgotten! The “forgotten” men and women of this country are those who are impoverished, minority, female, and/or non-Christian! Michael Brown…Treyvon Martin…see, I’m even having trouble remembering the names, and I don’t forget these truly forgotten people.

The Ammon Bundys and Phil Robertsons of the world are not forgotten, have never been forgotten, and will probably never be forgotten, much as we might try. The only reason Donnie’s base is angry is that someone is trying to render them equal with everyone else, instead of superior….and Donnie thinks they should be superior, because…well, because white. Because male. Because wealthy. Because voted for Donnie.

Frederick Crews, whose latest book is the wonderful Freud: The Making of an Illusion, has a review-article on a new book about “recovered memory” and a criminal trial.

Until now the work has been almost entirely ignored by reviewers. Yet it comes with the strong endorsement of a world-renowned psychologist and memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus, and a leading expert on coercive interrogation methods and false confessions, Richard A. Leo. If they are right, Mark Pendergrast’s 391-page The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment can erase the shame of both Penn State and Sandusky, who languishes in solitary confinement, for 22 hours a day, in a maximum-security state prison.

Pendergrast is an independent scholar and science writer who has long been concerned with the psychology and disastrous consequences of falsely “recovered memory.” Like nearly all consumers of mainstream news, Pendergrast at first took the reports of Sandusky’s misdeeds at face value. But when, in 2013, he received a tip that there appeared to be a recovered memory aspect to the case, he was intrigued. After studying all pertinent documents, corresponding with Sandusky and twice visiting him, and interviewing family members, alumni of Sandusky’s Second Mile program, and other figures involved in the case, Pendergrast assembled an imposing argument against the consensus.

It’s unsettling. Could the Sandusky case be just another McMartin Preschool case?

Many factors contributed to the Sandusky debacle: a prurient misconstruction of well-meant deeds; excessive zeal by officials, police, social workers, and therapists; scandal mongering by the media that preempted the judicial process; the greed of abuse claimants and their lawyers; and a political vendetta against Penn State’s President Spanier by then Governor Tom Corbett. But the main ingredient in the witches’ brew, the one that rendered it most toxic, was something else: bogus psychological theory.

The indefinite and unsupported concepts of dissociation and repression, wielded without allowance for the distorting effects of suggestion and autosuggestion, lent forensic weight to nightmarish scenes that were “retrieved” in a climate of fright. Without that bad science, imparted first by therapy (Fisher) and then by social contagion (McQueary), there would have been no case at all against Sandusky. Attorney General Linda Kelly acknowledged as much in her triumphant press conference following the conviction. She praised the accusers for their courage and persistence in struggling toward a negation of their original statements to authorities. “It was incredibly difficult,” she proclaimed, “for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the shocking abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”

When you hear prosecutors talking about “long-buried memories” you should be suspicious. Long ignored or avoided memories are one thing, but buried ones are another.