While the House was busy with impeachment procedures, the Senate was up to no good. Senate Republicans almost unanimously voted Wednesday to endorse
Donald Trump's sabotage of the Affordable Care Act, defeating the Senate
Democrats in their effort to repeal a Trump administration rule
allowing states to offer crappy insurance. It failed 43-52.
The lone Republican voting with Democrats was Sen. Susan Collins of
Maine. Which pretty much shows how effective a political issue health
care remains going into 2020. Although no states have taken the Trump administration
up on its offer allow Obamacare's subsidies for coverage to plans that
don't meet the essential benefits standards of the law, this vote was
politically important.
Because what the administration was trying to
destroy, along with the rest of the law, is the prohibition of
discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.
These plans that Trump wants taxpayer dollars to subsidize could do
just that—deny coverage to people who have preexisting conditions. Every
Republican senator running for reelection in 2020 is now going to have
to answer for that.
That even includes Collins, because voters back home
are going to see through this, and will know just how opportunistic
this one vote is. Besides, it isn't a vote that matters. Republicans
were going to win with or without her.
No, it's her make or break votes
that matter, that show who she truly is. Like her vote for alleged
sexual assaulter Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Donald Trump’s aversion to paying his bills is going strong, with his campaign now owing U.S. cities more than $1 million in unpaid expenses from Trump’s rallies. In fact, the number could be close to $1.7 million.
Albuquerque is seeking $211,000 after a September rally. Minneapolis
is looking for $530,000 after Trump’s rally there earlier this month—in
fact, the city tried to get the campaign to pay up in advance, knowing
Trump’s history. El Paso has added a $99,000 late fee to its original
invoice of more than $569,000.
These cities shouldn’t hold their breaths—they didn’t have binding
contracts with the campaign, so it’ll be that much harder to collect
from an experienced deadbeat. But people across the U.S., in red and
purple and blue states alike, should understand that this is how Trump
treats America’s cities because this is how little he thinks of anyone
but himself.
I’ve had bosses before who always seemed to do everything
they could to disrupt our team’s progress, either through interjecting
nonsense or making decisions that impacted the project without thinking
things through. In the end, if we still managed to pull it off, the guy
would humbly try to take all of the credit for his great
“leadership.” Thankfully, these guys usually didn’t get beyond middle
management, where they were stuck due to the Peter Principle.
It’s very rare to excel in a high-level position without
demonstrating any sort of talent for the job, or at least a baseline of
leadership and competence. Unfortunately, the presidency is one of
those few exceptions where a fake reality star with just the right
amount of easily-impressed dupes from strategic areas can amass enough
delegates to win our archaic Electoral College. Thus, a man with no
moral compass, no concept of service, no experience or knowledge of
anything related to the military or government, and the literal
temperament of a four-year-old can be exalted to the highest government
official and become Commander-in-Chief.
Assad’s forcesCase in point: Trump. After being browbeaten on the phone by
Turkey’s strongman, Recep Erdogan, Trump impulsively submitted to all of
his demands. Trump agreed to immediately pull our troops out of Syria
and deploy them elsewhere in the Middle East, pleasing our enemies and
putting our allies in danger. Erdogan instantly prepared for bombing
raids, and Bashir al-Assad and Vladimir Putin sent forces into Kurdish
territory.
Trump told no one of this, not even his closest sycophants like Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. He just did it.
When the Pentagon found out, officials were livid. They had
several operations planned in the area, including the one to kill
al-Baghdadi, where intelligence was being provided directly by Kurdish
intelligence officials.
Losing control of the area put the Pentagon in a serious dilemma. According to military officials, as reported by The New York Times, they decided to go with a “risky, night raid before their ability to control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared.” The Times continued that, according to officials familiar with the mission, “Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death...occurred largely in spite of Mr. Trump’s actions.”
Thankfully, due to the competence and adaptability of our special
forces, they were able to pull it off despite Trump jeopardizing the
mission. Pentagon officials also had significant praise for Kurdish
intelligence, who helped the C.I.A. even after Trump decided to abandon them to fight Turkey and their insurgent-backed forces.
Think about that: The Iraqi and Syrian Kurds provided intelligence
that directly led to the whereabouts of al-Baghdadi and even loaned a
facility to practice the raid.
They did this as Trump was stabbing them
in the back and insulting them. Trump had forgotten that it was the
Peshmerga who achieved full territorial victory against ISIS—something he had recently promised he’d never forget.
Trump did mention the Kurds when he was thanking people, other than
himself, during his “big announcement.” Yet he did it in the most snarky
way possible.
Trump chided them for not participating
directly in the raid militarily—failing to mention that they are in the
fight of their lives, thanks to Trump. However, even he had to
acknowledge that the information they provided “turned out to be
helpful.” Because he’s that much of an ass.
In fact, as at least one official admits, without the Kurds, this victory might not have happened. Why? As reported by The Times, one official said the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds “provided more intelligence for the raid than any single country.”
The president did profusely thank Russia in his announcement,
however. Even though they too did not participate militarily, Trump
gushed and fawned all over them. What’s worse, he heaped praise on
Putin’s army even before once mentioning the U.S. troops who conducted
the operation.
Our military should be highly praised for conducting a flawless raid,
despite the executive interference. At least Trump was able to get his
photo-op...sort of.
However, I would also like to thank our allies, the Kurds, for once
again helping our country and our military. The Russian asset in the
White House consistently goes out of his way to do harm to both.
Trump could really learn something about American patriotism from the Kurds.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been on a GOP charm
offensive, and it seems to be working for the social media behemoth as
it makes its allegiance to the Republican Party more open. In the days
preceding his latest testimony before Congress, Zuckerberg had been
"hosting a series of dinners with conservative journalists, right-wing
celebrities, and at least one Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham,
who grilled Zuckerberg about Facebook’s market dominance when he
testified in a Senate hearing last year," Politicoreported.Among
those who attended the conservative-only dinners at Zuckerberg’s home
were Fox News' Tucker Carlson, the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, radio host
Hugh Hewitt, Guy Benson of Townhall, and Byron York of the Washington Examiner. All of them function as public apologists for Donald Trump, who has spent years bullying Facebook for supposedly trying to "censor" conservative voices.
Facebook's reward for that outreach effort came last week
when "Republican members of the committee were generally more
supportive of Mr. Zuckerberg," when he appeared before Congress, TheNew York Times reported.
Indeed, Facebook's political transformation from a
quasi-progressive outpost that revolutionized information sharing into a
bullied GOP lapdog now seems complete, as the company gives Republicans
a green light
to use the social media platform to lie their way through Trump's
re-election campaign next year and create a sea of online
disinformation. "Facebook is actively helping Trump spread lies and misinformation," Elizabeth Warren warned this month. "Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once. They might do it again—and profit off of it."
There's no question about the profit part. "Trump’s
reelection campaign is far outspending other candidates on Facebook ads
and boosted posts—to the tune of more than $20.7 million between May
2018 and October 2019, more than all the Democratic presidential
candidates combined," Slate reports.
Here's why Facebook now comes across as a digital errand boy for Republican campaigns: It's because the Republican Party today revolves around telling lies. And it's not a bug—it's a feature.
Republicans proudly lie about taxes, and they lie about immigration. It's become like breathing for them. (Trump
is on pace to tell 16,000 lies in four years.) They lie about
everything and that has become the fuel that drives the party. So
naturally it's also the fuel that drives Trump's re-election campaign.
And no, we've never seen anything like this in American history.
Note, however, that there is no such mirror embrace of
wholesale untruths by the Democratic Party, which simply does not
traffic in misinformation the way the GOP does. And in that environment,
Facebook has decided that it will unilaterally allow politicians to lie
via paid Facebook ads under the auspice that it's news. "In a
democracy, I think that people should be able to hear for themselves
what politicians are saying," Zucker recently told TheWashington Post,
defending the company's official shoulder-shrug policy to allow massive
misinformation campaigns. Well, guess who benefits from that? The GOP.
And guess who looks like they created a really bad policy in order to
appease the Republican Party?
Facebook.
Meaning: Facebook walking away from the truth in
political ads is a de facto gift to Republicans, and specifically the
Trump campaign, because spreading misinformation is what Republicans do.
It is not what Democrats do.
Meanwhile, it doesn't help that Zuckerberg has trouble telling the truth
about Facebook's own fact-checking procedures. (Yes, they use the
right-wing outlet The Daily Caller to help on out that front.) It also
doesn't help that Facebook touts its hands-off policy regarding
political advertising, yet back in the spring the company stepped in and
removed
several of Warren’s political ads over content. (Warren has called for
the breakup of tech and social media giants, such as Amazon and
Facebook.)
Today, Zuckerberg likes to pretend Facebook's radical
do-nothing policy makes him a "free speech" advocate, which is comical.
After Trump’s re-election campaign released, without evidence, an advertisement accusing former Vice President Joe Biden
of using his office to pressure Ukrainian officials to drop an
investigation into a company where his son, Hunter Biden, sat on the
board, CNN refused to run the ad and its false claim, and no serious
players accused the network of "censorship." Facebook, though, gladly
accepted the Trump campaign's payment, telling the Biden team that the
false Trump ad was staying up because Facebook considers statements by
politicians to be newsworthy, even if they are false.
Facebook's CEO defended that soggy policy at a recent
speech at Georgetown University. "Zuckerberg’s unsophisticated thoughts
on free speech generated a manifesto that can only be called
incoherent," noted
Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies at the University of
Virginia. And that raises the key question: Why would Facebook embrace
such an incoherent policy for such an important issue, like safeguarding
democracy? One obvious answer is that the company is so focused on
doing the GOP's bidding, and has been so thoroughly bullied by Trump,
that it has backed itself into an incoherent corner.
Here's the bottom line: Facebook is under political
pressure from both the left and the right in the U.S., and the company
only seems to be actively caving to one set of concerns—Republicans'.
Liberals want Facebook to take down much more of the demonstrably false
content that floods Facebook. The right claims Facebook censors
conservative voices, which remains an utterly false claim, considering
data constantly shows right-wing voices are routinely among the most
seen and shared "news" voices on Facebook.
"For decades, Republicans have bashed the supposedly
liberal mainstream media in an effort to work the refs," Democratic Sen.
Mazie Hirono of Hawaii recently explained. "Now that two-thirds of Americans get their news from social media, Republicans have a new boogeyman to target—big tech."
The sad fact is that social media and tech giants are
doing exactly what traditional media companies did when they faced bogus
cries of "bias" from the right-wing swamp: They're running around
trying to curry favor with conservatives, desperately trying to explain
that they're not really anti-GOP. In the process, they're clearing the
field for Trump's re-election campaign to lie its way back into office.
Eric Boehlert is a veteran progressive writer and media analyst, formerly with Media Matters and Salon. He is the author ofLapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for BushandBloggers on the Bus. You can follow him on Twitter@EricBoehlert.
On Tuesday, Ambassador William Taylor, who has headed up the U.S.
diplomatic mission in Ukraine since Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was
forced out with a collection of lies and conspiracy theories, appeared
before the House impeachment inquiry to provide his testimony.
Representatives who left the session at breaks throughout the day have
described that testimony as powerful, and those who were present for his
opening statement have said gasps came from the assembled committees as
Taylor made his opening remarks.
Taylor’s opening remarks
have now been made public, and they are at least as powerful, if not
more so, than any charges leveled in the original whistleblower
complaint. As usual, Taylor begins by outlining his own years in
service. While many of those testifying can offer accounts of years of
national service, few have a background that matches Taylor’s. His
personal history includes being a West Point cadet, service in Vietnam,
and six years as an infantry officer. His extensive service with the
State Department includes working in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as in
Ukraine. But Taylor made it clear that Ukraine service was the one he
considered the most vital, for a particular reason.
“Ukraine is, right at this moment while we sit in this room, and for
the last five years, under armed attacked by Russia,” wrote Taylor. “The
security assistance that we provide is crucial to Ukraine’s defense
against Russian aggression.” Taylor spoke directly to the role of
Ukraine as both a strategic and a symbolic partner, one whose success in
fending off Russia is being closely observed by every other nation
threatened by the Russian military.
Taylor spoke to how he was offered the role of chief of mission in
May by Mike Pompeo. It was a post he had held under the Bush
administration, and one he considered vitally important, but he took it
reluctantly after seeing how Yovanovitch had been treated. Taylor says
he took on the role only after securing from Pompeo a promise of “strong
support” for Ukraine and after expressing concern about the
interference being generated by Rudy Giuliani.
However, once he was in Kyiv, Taylor found himself facing what he
described as a “weird combination” of circumstances in which, even as he
attempted to initiate formal contacts with the new government of
President Volodymyr Zelensky, his efforts were being undercut by “an
irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy making” that included special
envoy Kurt Volker, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Ambassador to the
EU Gordon Sondland. Even before Taylor arrived in Ukraine, that
irregular channel had been at work, and it was clear that its goals were
not strong support for Ukraine and regular diplomatic relations.
What the group wanted was Ukraine to announce investigations into Joe
Biden and into conspiracy theories around the 2016 election. That was
made clear to Taylor, as well as to Zelensky, and the group made it
clear that the status of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship hung on giving
Trump that announcement. Sondland in particular communicated repeatedly to Taylor that if
Ukraine wanted to play ball, it had to give Trump the investigations he
wanted.
On June 27, Sondland called Taylor to tell him that Zelensky had to
make it clear he wasn’t “standing in the way” of investigations.
On June 28, Taylor joined a call with Sondland, Perry, Volker, and
President Zelensky. Before Zelensky joined, Sondland informed the
Americans on the line that he wanted to make sure no one was taking
notes on the call. On the call, Volker made it clear that he meant to
have a one-on-one meeting with Zelensky in which he would “be explicit”
in asking for investigations in exchange for a meeting with Trump. This
call concerned Taylor strongly enough that he wrote a note to Deputy
Secretary of State George Kent, warning him of the contents of the
conversation.
The “three amigos” of Perry, Sondland, and Volker were not being subtle in their statements to either Zelensky or Taylor.
By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President
Zelensky wanted was conditioned on investigations of Burisma and alleged
Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.
On July 10, Taylor met with disappointed Ukrainian officials who told
him that they had learned the call between Zelensky and Trump was
unlikely to happen—they had been told this by Rudy Giuliani.
In July 18, Taylor learned that Trump had placed a hold on any
further aid to Ukraine and saw clearly for the first time that the two
different diplomatic tracks weren’t just “weird,” but were operating in
opposite directions.
I and others sat in astonishment—the Ukrainians were fighting the
Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the
assurance of U.S. support. … In an instant I realized that one of the
key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened. The
irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of
longstanding U.S. policy.
The next day, Taylor learned of multiple efforts of the “irregular”
team, including a meeting that featured Giuliani and Volker. By July 20,
Sondland wasn’t just insisting on investigations—he was actually
writing lines for Zelensky to deliver in announcing those
investigations.
And following Trump’s eventual July 25 call to Zelensky—Taylor wasn’t
allowed to listen in and was not given a transcript—Sondland responded
to his texts with very clear information.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had
made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he
spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent
on a public announcement of investigations — in fact,
Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an
announcement, including security assistance,
What Taylor notes is that the Trump team was not just extorting
Ukraine by withholding aid—it was also well aware that it was wrong. If
that wasn’t clear enough, Sondland put it in even clearer terms right
before the text that Taylor produced calling the whole policy “crazy.”
During our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain
to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about
to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the
businessperson asks that person to pay up before signing the check.
It’s not quid pro quo. It’s just making someone pay up before getting a check.
Here is a rundown of a few of the things that have occupied William Barr’s time over just the last three months.
Barr went to Rome
in effort to solicit testimony that a Maltese professor was actually a
U.S. deep-cover agent put in place before Donald Trump even became a
candidate in order to “trap” his campaign into clamoring for Russian
assistance. Then he did it again.
Barr attempted to block the whistleblower complaint the
sparked the impeachment inquiry against Trump from ever reaching the
public, and delayed knowledge of the complaint from reaching Congress
for weeks. To do this, Barr overrode the judgement of the
Trump-appointed general counsel of the CIA and the Trump-appointed
inspector general of the intelligence community.
Barr leaned on Australian officials in an effort to get them to attack U.S. intelligence operatives and told Trump to contact Australia and solicit information aimed at discrediting special counsel Robert Mueller.
As with his Italian trip, the conspiracy theory Barr attempted to
support with this move would both indict U.S. officials and exonerate
Vladimir Putin.
The results of those actions? The Italian prime minister told Barr to
leave them out of it; Australian officials refused to take any part in
this fantasy; the lawsuit to protect Trump’s taxes failed in court; and
Barr couldn’t manage to achieve a single indictment against McCabe.
Also, that whistleblower complaint? It got out.
But while Barr’s batting average may look to be in the low-nothings,
he doesn’t have to put one between the lines every time. He doesn’t have
to be right at all.
After all, what Donald Trump requested of Ukraine
wasn’t actual investigations into anything; it was just the announcement of
investigations. And even if Barr hasn’t convinced anyone else to play
along with Trump’s favorite conspiracy theories, he’s perfectly adequate
at suppressing information and distorting findings.
Trump isn’t after facts. He doesn’t require convictions. The
announcement that the DOJ is conducting a criminal investigation focused
on James Comey, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama … that’s more than enough for Trump. And Barr is exactly the Roy Cohn-Joseph McCarthy hybrid who will give it to him.
Don't waste a lot of money on that Colorado wall @realDonaldTrump. Everyone's so high you could just do like a 6ft fence. Ain't nobody want to climb shit when they're high.
And the only gay governor in America, our very own Jared Polis, observed...
Well this is awkward ...Colorado doesn’t border Mexico. Good thing Colorado now offers free full day kindergarten so our kids can learn basic geography
Blue state New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s press secretary Nora Sackett was less amused.
“Wouldn’t surprise me if he really did forget about a state that he lost by such a significant margin, especially when that seems to be the only thing of importance to him and given that he can expect more of the same in 2020,” Sackett told HuffPost in an email. “No one wants his wall, whether it’s on the Mexican border, the Colorado border, or the Canadian border.”
In a follow-up statement, a different member of Lujan Grisham’s press office emphasized: “Yes, we are a state.”
Just $25, and best of all, $17 from the sale of each plate will fund spay and neuter services for dogs and cats across Arizona. Click ad to order now at www.azpetplates.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TO ADVERTISE ON OUR BLOG
The above are paid ads. To place yours for just $25/month, call Jim Keyworth at (928) 517-1103 or e-mail peoplesgazette@gmail.com. Banner ads are also available across the bottom and top of the blog.
(The Rim Country Gazette Blog is currently averaging over 5,000 visits per month. Our readership survey shows Gazette readers are better educated and more affluent than the average newspaper reader. Gazette Blog ads reach the people most likely to vote and to use your services and products.)
