Source: http://www.skyislandscriber.com/2018/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:03:03+00:00

Document:
FBI has a week to investigate additional allegations in Kavanaugh case. Comey says they can do it.
The clock is running on the re-opening of the FBI investigation into various allegations about sexual abuse and drinking habits of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Some have questioned whether a week is enough time. Some have suspicions about whether Trump and the White House will stay out of the way - or attempt to bias the Bureau’s work.
Former FBI Director James Comey weighed in with a NY Times op-ed saying that The F.B.I. Can Do This. Despite limitations and partisan attacks, the bureau can find out a lot about the Kavanaugh accusations in a week. Comey gives us a bit of a window into how the Bureau runs such an investigation.
… President Trump’s decision to order a one-week investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, his Supreme Court nominee, comes in a time of almost indescribable pain and anger, lies and attacks.
The trick here is to not let Trump and the Crassley Crew ham-string the FBI agents. More on that from another source below. First, Comey continues.
But is the White House limiting the investigation?
AZCentral reports that the White House is not involved with FBI investigation into Kavanaugh allegations, officials say. But others have reservations.
WASHINGTON – The White House is not interfering with the FBI’s background investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, officials said Sunday.
President Donald Trump told reporters himself Saturday as he left for a rally in West Virginia that FBI agents have “free rein” over the investigation.
Still, she emphasized that it was up to the FBI to determine what the “limited scope” meant.
That’s the essence it of but you can read more at the azcentral site.
Here are your targets to lean on now from the 538’s significant digits email.
Mourn for America and the death of its democracy. All signs are that today is not a good day for the rule of law.
By the time you read this, 9:00 AM on Thursday 27 September 2018, assuming you track my blog minute by minute, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the alleged sexual abuse by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh will have been in session for two hours. If all goes according to the plan worked out by committee chair Sen. Crassley, it might even be over in another couple of hours - at most. Here is why, according to AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona, (Update) A sham hearing and a denial of due process.
Check out the Blue Meanie’s post for citations in the snippets below.
Nor, Scriber adds, will there be any attempt to investigate claims of the third woman (represented by Michael Avenatti).
… Republican senators desperately want to get to “yes” on Kavanaugh’s nomination to appease their GOP crazy base. This despite the fact that a Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination.
But with the GOPlins in charge, led by Crassley, there might be a committee vote as soon as tomorrow in spite of this deeply flawed political theatre unfolding as I write. And let’s not forget that Deputy AG Rosenstein meets again with Trump today and may vey well be fired by the time you read this.
WASHINGTON — Following is a statement by Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, president of the American Psychological Association, regarding what the scientific research says about the reporting of sexual assault in light of the allegation by Christine Blasey Ford, PhD, with respect to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh: “Sexual assault is likely the most under-reported crime in the United States. About two-thirds of female sexual assault victims do not report to the police, and many victims do not tell anyone. Sexual assault is a terrifying and humiliating experience. Women choose not to report for a variety of reasons — fear for their safety, being in shock, fear of not being believed, feeling embarrassed or ashamed, or expecting to be blamed.
Silly question. Not when the stakes involve their SCOTUS pick. Instead, they are bashing the accuser once again.
Avi Selk at the Washington Post writes much more about What the man accused of being part of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault had to say about women’s sexuality.
Judge’s yearbook entry appears one page before the bio of his classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, federal judge and Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983 — a year after they allegedly locked a girl inside a bedroom at a house party, where she says a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to strip her while a similarly drunken Judge watched and laughed.
Both men have denied the accusation, which Christine Blasey Ford went public with this week in The Washington Post. A lawyer for Judge said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has “no memory of this alleged incident.” Judge previously told the New York Times that such behavior would be wildly out of character for the Catholic-raised-and-educated boys who went to Georgetown Prep in the early ’80s.
What Judge has written in his career as a journalist and author is another matter.
Well, hmmmm. Maybe Brett Kavanaugh would welcome a defense from someone other than Mark Judge. How about a distinguished long-term U. S. Senator like Orin Hatch? Steve Benen (MSNBC/MaddowB log) weighs in: Orrin Hatch defends Kavanaugh in the least persuasive way possible.
Hatch, you see, is defending Kavanaugh as one of the Republican voices targeting Kavanaugh’s accuser.
The retiring Utah Republican told Capitol Hill reporters yesterday, for example, in refence to Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, that Kavanaugh didn’t even attend the party. Since Ford hasn’t gone into any details about the event, it’s difficult to know how the judge, or his GOP ally in the Senate, could say this with any certainty.
Hatch added that Ford must be “mixed up,” evidently because Kavanaugh says so.
It’s obviously a debatable point, which could be at the center of a spirited discussion – if that were Kavanaugh’s defense. But it’s not. The conservative jurist isn’t saying he made a horrible mistake as a high-school student, learned from it, and is a better person now; he’s saying his accuser is lying and her corroborating evidence should be ignored.
Orrin Hatch is comfortable with both claims simultaneously – Kavanaugh didn’t attack Ford, and even if he did, Kavanaugh shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions now – but that doesn’t mean everyone else should be so cavalier about the revelations.
OK. Let’s pick another U. S. Senator who we would assume want truth out because of his position on the Judiciary Committee.
But on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) admitted that the hearing was scheduled without securing a commitment from Ford to appear. When Ford didn’t immediately respond to emails, Grassley just scheduled it anyway.
Does anyone think that Ford and her allegations will get a fair shake from the Republican senators? Perhaps.
There are several members of the Republican caucus, including Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who have said they want to hear from Ford before moving forward. If those Senators aren’t on board with confirming Kavanaugh without an investigation or testimony from Ford, Republicans don’t have the votes to proceed.
A video surfaced on Tuesday from a 2015 speech by Kavanaugh that has new resonance in light of Ford’s allegations. “What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep. That’s been a good thing for all of us,” Kavanaugh told an audience at Columbus School of Law.
If you are not prone to the use of cuss words, you will be after reading this item from 538’s significant digits email.
This is the article from NBC News: FEMA to test ‘Presidential Alert’ system next week. Its subtitle is: Experts expressed little concern that the wireless emergency alerts could be used for political purposes. To paraphrase Melania: I don’t believe that. Do you? Read on.
“The EAS [Emergency Alert System] is a national public warning system that provides the President with the communications capability to address the nation during a national emergency,” FEMA said.
The test message will have a header that reads “Presidential Alert,” according to the agency.
In what universe are those experts living?
President Trump is already suspect in the breaking of laws so why not one more? How about these?
Hillary is a threat to public safety. Lock her up!
My approval ratings are a man-made disaster. Fake news!
The Mueller investigation is a natural disaster. FEMA, are you there? Protect me, Sessions!
Shortly you will be asked to cast a vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court. What you do might well take valor. Everything you detest about President Trump exists as a microcosm that played out in the confirmation hearings. The record shows Kavanaugh being less than honest in previous appearances before the Senate. The record this year shows Kavanaugh being evasive and not answering questions put by the senators. In the past, you have spoken out forcefully on your displeasure with the president. Trump most recently has tried to use the Justice Department against his political opponents. And now Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh appears to be a ploy to protect himself from his legal entanglements. You need to talk about the connection between Trump and Kavanaugh, but you need to do more. You need to vote against that confirmation. Your integrity and credibility are at stake.
In the Rogue Theatre director’s notes, we are told: “Like the courtiers surrounding Prince Cosimo de Medici who refuse to look through Galileo’s telescope, we refuse to learn the truth because it might upset our ideas about the way things are.” You, sir, are not a courtier and Donald Trump is not a king. You are a United States senator and as such you should demand and get honesty and forthrightness from those who testify before the Senate.
I hope you will behave with valor and vote against this confirmation. I ask this of you in the name of the citizens of the United States of America to whom you owe the truth.
This morning, the GV News published a response to that letter.
Well, I suppose if President Trump walked on water, Mr. Maki would be the first to claim the president couldn’t swim.
Also this morning, I submitted a reply .
At this writing, I do not know if the GV News editor, Dan Shearer, will publish it. For the sake of factual evidence, I hope he does.
As for Etheredge’s supposition “if President Trump walked on water,” his supporters really believe something like that. But you know from the fact-checking that would likely be a lie. Trump would then drown under the weight of his mendacity.
Scriber will be on vacation until September 27th. Any posts to this blog will depend on Scriber’s travel schedule. Photos will be posted to Bill Maki’s Facebook page.
According to Sen. Jeff Flake, Congress has a duty to curb Trump’s ‘reckless behavior’ reports Steve Benen (MSNBC/MaddowBlog). But, as we all should know by now, there is a gap between what Flake does and what he says.
According to the analyses by Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com, Flake votes in accord with Trump 83.3% of the time. Now that sounds high, but compared to other Republicans it really is good - that puts Flake as the 5th lowest Republican in the Senate - along with Collins and Murkowski, for example. However, Flake votes with Trump more often than would be expected given the results of the 2016 election in Arizona, + 24.3. He’s the 13th highest on that measure.
That’s what Flake does. Now what does he say? For that we turn to Benen’s report.
The retiring Republican senator added that Congress has “the responsibility to curb such reckless behavior” from Trump and appealed to lawmakers to speak out.
Of course, speaking out and lawmakers taking steps to curb reckless presidential behavior are not the same thing.
But as compelling as Flake’s criticisms are, there’s still something important missing: follow through.
But this isn’t just a matter of voting records. In practical terms, Trump knows (and cares) so little about public policy that lawmakers like Flake have enormous power – especially in a narrowly divided 51–49 Senate. The question is what the Arizonan and his colleagues intend to do with that power.
Flake’s online bio, for example, notes that he serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is a subcommittee chairman. Has he used this perch to pressure the White House? Not in any meaningful way.
That would be only part of what should be done. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would leave at risk matters such as Roe v. Wade.
I like Flake’s speeches, op-eds, and books. I also recognize that it takes some political courage to speak out the way he has. But I keep waiting for the Arizona senator to actually do something – to follow up his welcome words with deeds – instead of preparing the next speech, op-ed, and book.
NBC News’ Benjy Sarlin noted a few months ago that Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) started blocking the White House’s Justice Department nominees until the administration met his demands on matters related to his state. Flake, meanwhile, apparently sees the president as a danger to the republic, but he’s made no comparable moves.
In a 51–49 Senate, Flake can wield great influence. It’s not too late for him to take better advantage of the opportunity to keep a president that frightens him in check.
If Flake does not do that, he is guilty of being an “enabler” speaking out as did the author of a recent notorious op-ed, but in practice acting to advance Trump’s agenda.
In my recent letter to the (Green Valley News) editor, An open letter to Sen. Jeff Flake, I noted that Flake needs to act with “valor” and vote against the Kavanaugh nomination to SCOTUS. He could announce his opposition to the nomination and voice an intention to vote against the nomination. In that way he would provide political cover for other Senators (like Collins and Murkowski) who might be inclined to vote no.
Here I leave it with two “C” words. Will Flake cast that vote with Courage? Or meekly vote with Cowardice to confirm?
Funding for hurricane relief diverted to ICE's detention program. The bottom of the Trump administration cruel bungling is not yet in sight.
One of the great ironies of the Trump era is the administration’s completely duplicitous claims about Puerto Rico’s recovery from Hurricane Maria and the actual fatality count. Yesterday Trump was on television taking credit for Puerto Rico as an “unsung success”. But what he did not say is that over 2900 Puerto Ricans died because of the bungled response to that disaster. Rachel Maddow reported in her show yesterday on Trump’s claims: Trump praises P.R. response despite nearly 3000 American deaths.
But wait! There’s another disaster in the making just around the corner as Hurricane Florence is about to trash the east coast of the United States. Here’s an item from 538’s significant digits email.
By now you know that just when you think this administration could not get worse, the bottom appears beyond our ability to see it let alone land on it.
Rachel Maddow also reported last night that the administration is sucking lots more money out of the Coast Guard budget to give to ICE: Document shows DHS transferring $29M from Coast Guard to ICE.
Rachel Maddow reports on a DHS document from Senator Merkley that shows nearly $10 million dollars being transferred from FEMA’s budget to fund ICE detentions, and $29 million being taken from the Coast Guard, ahead of the 2018 hurricane season. Moira Whelan, a former DHS official, joins to discuss how FEMA budgets its money.
Why does ICE need more money for detention? Here’s a possible reason. Detention of Migrant Children Has Skyrocketed to Highest Levels Ever reported the New York Times yesterday.
When Carolinians complain about FEMA, and you know they will, they can take solace from the knowledge that they are paying, via FEMA, for more facilities that keep families separated. And that’s a direct result of the Trump administration policy. Cruel.
538’s significant digits email reports on Trump’s latest (un)popularity score.
Following is a letter to the editor from your Scriber appearing in the Green Valley News this morning titled Kavanaugh vote.
An open letter to Sen. Jeff Flake.
BTW: I highly recommend the Rogue Theatre version of the play, Galileo.
Really? Naw. I don’t believe it. I posted that headline just to get you to read this and get juiced up. Read on about national trends and the race for Democratic governor.
My colleague Mike Allen, who’s covered a few midterm elections in his time, says it’s rare to see so much evidence of a trend accumulate so many months out, only for all the signals to be proven wrong.
Check out Swan’s report for quantitative indicators, examples being the number of House seats in play due to retirements in 2010 (14 Dems) vs. 2018 (41 GOP) and 2nd quarter fundraising in 2010 (44 Dem candidates out-raised) vs. 2018 (56 GOP candidates out-raised).
The big picture: Yes, the punditocracy is being cautious about 2018 because it has fresh memories of how humiliating it felt to wake up on Nov. 9, 2016, with Donald Trump as president. But the [table in Swan’s post] tells a stark story and shows the pundit class may be underestimating the odds of a devastating election season for Republicans.
The bottom line: The signals look every bit as bad for Republicans as they did for House Democrats when they got wiped out in the 2010 Tea Party wave.
“Every metric leads you to one conclusion: The likelihood of significant Republican losses in the House and state/local level is increasing by the week,” said the Republican operative who did this statistical comparison to 2010.
So let’s look at the Senate as seen by Dan Balz (Washington Post) who writes Forget the House. It’s the battle for the Senate that could provide the most drama on election night.
The House is no slam-dunk for the Democrats, but most Republicans following the campaigns are genuinely worried and probably right to be that way. The overall environment is difficult for the GOP because of President Trump and because of the location of the competitive races; suburban areas as one example. There are so many Republican-held seats at risk (and very few Democratic seats in similar danger) that Democrats have multiple paths to pick up the 23 they need to flip the chamber.
The Senate is and has been a different story. There the Democrats’ prospects are much more difficult, in large part because of the two big structural differences with the battle for the House. If the terrain that will determine control of the House more generally reflects the breadth of the country, the campaign for the Senate is largely playing out in the heart of Trump country.
Check out the WaPo column for names and places, for example, the AZ race between Sinema and McSally.
Two … Democratic incumbents in toss-up races are Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III. Trump has campaigned in their states in an effort to rally his voters to turn out in November. But of the five Democrats in the reddest states, these two appear, today, in marginally better shape than their colleagues in North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and Florida.
… running the map state by state underscores the challenge to the Democrats. They need near-perfect campaigns to offset the GOP’s built-in advantages. Looking at things from that perspective, it’s no wonder that Republicans think, in the end, they will hold their majority in the Senate or even add a seat or more.
Larry Bodine at Blog for Arizona reports on a new survey: Ducey Has 8% Lead in AZ Gubernatorial Race.
There are two things about this report that should get you head-scratching. First, the other question asked in the survey was about Trump.
We need to go figure. Is Arizona so disconnected from the nation such that Ducey, an almost blood relative of Trump, is able to flip a strong national trend against Trump when it comes to the Governor race? I don’t know the answer. If any of you have a source that will clarify, please let me know.
The second thing is that the survey was based on “likely” voters. What the Democratic challenger, David Garcia, needs to do is to bring out “unlikely” voters. With Garcia down by 8 points in the survey, and with only about 8% voters still undecided, he could very well lose - if he just goes after the undecided vote. If the undecided voters break along party lines, in red-state AZ, Garcia won’t make it. Just trying to snag disaffected “moderate” Republicans, it seems to me, also is a losing strategy given how strongly cultish Republicans love their King Donald. So Scriber thinks getting those “unlikely” voters out in force is what Garcia must do.
Now you know about my headline. A 2018 Democratic victory in Arizona, at least for Governor, depends on “unlikely” voters.
Judd Legum in his popular.info email exposes how Trump and his economic advisors dish out BS about the economy. Legum starts with this economic fantasy.
In Hassett’s reality, wages are booming, business investment is spiking, and a trillion dollars in corporate tax cuts is paying for itself. And we have one person to thank: Donald Trump.
None of this, however, is true. Hassett’s apocryphal economy has little in common with the real thing.
I’m going to invert the order and tell you in Legum’s account why no one should believe a damn thing that Hassett has to say.
In 1999 he wrote a book called “Dow 36,000.” Hassett and his coauthor predicted that the Dow Jones Industrial Average would top 36,000 by 2002 or 2004. The book offered investment advice on how to profit from this coming surge.
In 2002, the Dow stood at about 8,000. Nearly 16 years later, the Dow is at about 26,000, still 10,000 short of Hassett’s prediction.
I won’t bother you with the Hassett’s fantastical claims and instead just quote the facts about our current economy.
Business investment: has not “boomed as a result of the Trump tax cuts. … if you look at the trend in business investment since the end of the recession, you can see a steady increase since the great recession ended in 2010.” So Trump does not get credit for increasing business investment. He might, however, wish to take credit for stock buy-backs and more corporate dividends for the already rich.
Tax cuts: “The Trump administration is eager to make the case that the tax cuts have delivered. Why? Because they want more.” Despite the failure of Trumponomics expressed in the administration’s bogus claims, here is their response.
Trumponomics is the occult art of lying about what does not work and then doing it again.
As the saying goes, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” And, we should add, when those results don’t materialize, start the chocolate river flowing and let them eat cake.
Will Kavanaugh overturn Roe v. Wade? Judd Legum in this morning’s popular.info email provides an answer. Chances are you will not like it. Stick with me on this - we start with the legal status.
Some of the rights in the Constitution are “enumerated.” That means they are written right in the text. The First Amendment, for example, enumerates “freedom of speech” as a right.
Over time, however, the Supreme Court has recognized some “unenumerated” rights. These are rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but the court has ruled are there by implication. Unenumerated rights recognized by the Supreme Court include the right to travel, the right to privacy, and the right to contraception.
The right to an abortion, established by Roe v. Wade, is another unenumerated right based on the right to privacy.
The key question is: When should the court recognize an unenumerated right? In answering the question, Kavanaugh blew his cover.
Kavanaugh was very clear that this is the test he would apply to all unenumerated rights, which include the right to abortion.
“[A]ll roads lead to the Glucksberg test,” Kavanaugh added.
To understand the significance of what Kavanaugh said to Cruz last week about Glucksberg, look to Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech at the American Enterprise Institute. In the speech, Kavanaugh said unequivocally that abortion would not qualify as a Constitutional right under the Glucksberg test.
Of course, even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade in 1973 — as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In 2018, Kavanaugh said he would apply the Glucksberg test to Roe and other more recent cases affirming the Constitutional right to abortion. In 2017, Kavanaugh said Roe would fail the Glucksberg test.
He does not view it to be a close call. Kavanaugh says that “even a first-year law student” would understand that the Glucksberg test would invalidate Roe.
Abortion is an “unenumerated” constitutional right.
Kavanaugh testified that all “unenumerated” rights should be subjected to the Glucksberg test.
Just last year, Kavanaugh said that Roe and other recent cases establishing a right to abortion would fail the Glucksberg test.
On Twitter, Columbia law professor Jamal Greene agreed that, by embracing Glucksberg and pretending it was the court’s standard moving forward, Kavanaugh was signaling he would overturn Roe.
What Kavanaugh is describing is a radical new vision that threatens not only abortion rights but also other unenumerated rights that are not based on history and tradition.
So what can we do to derail this attack on Roe and other unenumerated rights? Legum counsels working the votes by those senators that are nominally undecided - Colllins and Murkowski come to mind.
The Republicans control 51 seats in the Senate. No Democrats have announced their support for Kavanaugh. If Collins and Murkowski oppose the nomination and Democrats hold firm, there will not be enough votes to confirm him to the Supreme Court.
The media has largely accepted the narrative that Kavanaugh has it in the bag. While Kavanaugh’s confirmation is the most likely outcome, this narrative was constructed by Republicans to demoralize the opposition to his nomination.
The hearings have concluded, but both Collins and Murkowski remain officially undecided.
They say they will not vote for a nominee that is hostile to Roe. Kavanaugh’s comments on Glucksberg make it crystal clear where he stands on the issue. While cynicism is comforting, there is still time to try to convince Collins and Murkowski to stand by their words.
As Jared Kuschner said in another context, get “on it”!
Welcome to this Mournday Mourning’s Illustrated Gnus from AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona..
Kavanaugh clams up in hearings, dodging “hypothetical” questions.
Pundits and politicians bet on Trump’s longevity in office. VP bids 5 pence.
Gnus from Texas: Trump cruises with Cruz.
Kavanaugh's history of evasion and likely perjury will not stop most, if not all, Republican senators from voting for confirmation. The question is why.
… none of this may matter. Republican senators have held their noses and put up with Trump for 20 months just to get to this moment—they’re not going to blow it now just because of a little perjury, racism, using stolen documents, and suborning of torture.
Questions about Kavanaugh’s possible likely perjury aside, his evasions should be enough to disqualify him. Here are snippets from Goldberg’s op-ed.
… Whatever emerges, Kavanaugh, under questioning from Democrats, offered no comfort to those who fear he’s being put in place to protect the president. Senator Richard Blumenthal asked if Kavanaugh would commit to recuse himself from cases involving Trump’s “personal criminal or civil liability,” but Kavanaugh would not do so. The nominee danced around a question from Senator Dianne Feinstein about whether a sitting president can be required to respond to a subpoena. He didn’t answer a question from Senator Patrick Leahy about whether a president can pardon himself.
There are plenty of reasons Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed. Leahy made a credible case that the judge once lied under oath about his knowledge of a scandal involving documents stolen from Senate Democrats, which happened when Kavanaugh was in the Bush administration. If Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, were actually committed to preserving Roe v. Wade, she would raise the alarm about a leaked email in which Kavanaugh questioned the idea that the 1973 abortion decision is “settled law.” But realistically, barring a last-minute outbreak of conscience from two Senate Republicans, Kavanaugh will soon sit on the Supreme Court.
… There’s every reason to believe that Kavanaugh will shield the president from accountability or restraints on his power. Yet even Republicans who think Trump is a menace are desperate to confirm his judicial pick.
Goldberg goes on to take a whack at the anonymous NY Times op-ed.
This is the quintessence of the Trump-enabling Republican. He or she purports to be standing between us and the calamities that our ignorant and unstable president could unleash, while complaining, in the very same op-ed, that the media doesn’t give the White House enough credit. This person wants the administration to thrive because it has advanced Republican policy objectives, even as he or she argues that the administration is so dangerous that it must be contained by unprecedented internal sabotage.
The choice is clear for Republican senators, Goldberg notes.
A vote for Kavanaugh is thus a vote to give Trump a measure of impunity. Republican senators who know the president is out of control have a choice — they can maintain a check on his ill-considered autocratic inclinations, or solidify right-wing power on the Supreme Court for a generation. It’s obvious which way they’ll go. Maybe they’ll tell themselves having adults in the room at the White House makes it O.K.
I’m adding some bio briefs so you can see exactly the kinds of people Trump demeans and slanders.
Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women’s rights, and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues.
Here’s a real gem from 538’s significant digits email.
Let’s explore that Times report, About 2 Million Low-Income Americans Would Lose Benefits Under House Farm Bill, Study Says, by Glenn Thrush.
I know we are all busy this election season, so let me lead with the bottom line and follow with some snippets.
Trump ordered a set of tariffs which have hit the agricultural heartland especially hard. Now Trump and his GOPlins in congress are conspiring, publicly, to financially assist bribe the farmers. But part of this compensation package messes with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a program that helps millions of households avoid hunger. Paul Ryan’s House does not care. Do you?
President Trump favors imposing stricter requirements on adult recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, and has disparagingly described beneficiaries as “welfare” recipients.
On Wednesday, he called for lawmakers to adopt the House version of the bill, which also includes billions in subsidies for agricultural states in the Midwest.
Nearly two million low-income Americans, including 469,000 households with young children, would be stripped of benefits under the House version of the farm bill being considered this week by congressional negotiators, according to an analysis by a nonpartisan research firm.
The bill, a multiyear spending measure that narrowly passed the House in June, includes a proposal to reformulate income and expense criteria for the 42 million recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Under the bill, states could remove about 8 percent of those receiving aid from the rolls, according to the research firm, Mathematica, which used data from the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service.
About 34 percent of seniors in the program, or 677,000 households, would lose benefits under the proposal, according to the study. More than one in 10 people with a disability, another 214,000 households, would also lose eligibility.
Those estimates do not account for another proposal in the measure, which would impose strict new work requirements on beneficiaries. An additional 1.2 million people could be stripped of aid under that plan, according to a separate analysis released in May by the Congressional Budget Office, the study’s authors said.
NY Times op-ed is amazing piece of writing - for someone in the Trump WH. Here are two pieces of humor to lighten your day.
With regard to the NY Times op-ed, New Yorker satirist Andy Borowitz reports that the Nation Stunned That There Is Someone in White House Capable of Writing an Editorial.
What If Trump Shot Someone on Fifth Avenue? (A ’toon series in the New Yorker by Ward Sutton, September 5, 2018) “I’m the guy he shot and I support him even more than I did before.” Check it out.
The author casts themselves and other senior administration officials as “heroes,” curbing Trump’s worst abuses. They are not heroes. They are collaborators and enablers.
Remember these passages from the op-ed and my post.
[I responded:] From this passage, you know the person writing this is a bonafide Republican type, one who extols deregulation that sickens us, tax “reform” that divides rich from poor, and the largest military budget in the history of mankind.
No it is not! I side with Legum on this one.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.