Apparently, the only conspiracy theory Donald Trump has ever heard that he didn’t believe is that our intelligence agencies are capable of effecting a change in our government.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
link
It almost sounds like Christie was a good guy in all this.
no, but he’s a professional politician and not nearly as dumb as the trump crew.
It’s a comparative thing, no? Compared to Flynn and Bannon, Christie IS ‘good’, if the minimum standard for ‘good’ is assembling a binder of qualified candidates, and then setting the binder in front of your boss so he can make an informed choice. Of course is this White House that is a fireable offense.
.
In this case, I think the fireable offense was putting the father of Trump’s son-in-law in prison. I suspect Kushner has never forgiven Christie for that.
Yes, but that would not be why Bannon and Flynn would be celebrating while throwing binders on the trash.
.
And of course the fact that the father was guilty as sin has nothing to do with it, to this gang.
When the editors of The New York Times were getting worried about the developing Washington Post “Watergate” story, James “Scotty” Reston had dinner with Henry Kissinger, who assured him there was nothing to it.
Why were the editors of the NYT worried? I’m not knowedgeable about that aspect of the story.
I’m guessing they were worried that they were missing out on a major story.
The Times was basking in the glow of the “Pentagon Papers” scoop at this time, and probably worried about losing the next one to the rival Post.
(Breaking into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office was one of the earlier tasks of the “plumbers unit” that perpetrated the Watergate burglary)
That’s right. There was nothing but skepticism from the rest of the journalistic world at the beginning of the Post Watergate investigation.
I remember those events well, and I didn’t see all that much skepticism. No one leapt to conclusions, but the press was hardly enamored of Nixon. And few of them thought the story was bullshit. Quite the opposite.
No, the journalistic community was very sluggish in following along with the story. The Post had trouble getting Woodward and Bernstein’s material onto the newswires and reprinted elsewhere. Once the tide turned, it turned hard, but for the first few weeks nobody cared; this is the period when that Reston/Kissinger dinner occurred.
This is one of many online entries which push back against the claim that the Post had the Watergate story largely to themselves.
I think the case the writer makes here is only mildly compelling, but he does remind us that the Times broke the story on the hush money paid to the burglars, for example. Woodward and Bernstein were first to discover the direct connections between the “plumbers” and the Nixon Administration that other news organizations and the Congressional and FBI investigators proved unable to ferret out as quickly.
It is the Senate investigation that delivered the fatal blows to Nixon’s scheme, however:
I hold particular animus for Mitchell in this whole thing. The chief law enforcement officer for our Nation directly supervising a criminal enterprise for openly partisan reasons- it’s particularly shocking.
Thank goodness for Butterfield. Look how terrified he is here as he reveals the existence of the Oval Office audiotape system. Yet he tells the truth.
This was a huge event in the annals of the Post/Times coverage wars. Many believe this was why the Times went all in on Whitewater – they wanted to break their own “Watergate.”
It is far past time in bringing a little bit of intellectual honesty to this subject. It really does deserve a certain level of scrutiny that it just has not received up to now.
And my conclusion, after looking at the issue closely, is that if people of such honesty as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Glenn Greenwald, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Julian Assange say it did not happen, then it did not happen.
WTFU, sheeple!
.
Still, I find it strange that Trump in his wisdom always brings it around to blaming Hillary or the democrats and fake news. Everyone knows that- so why keep repeating it, unless you think it will help to bring around the stupid democrats and that crazy guy investigating this nonsense.
Because that is what people with early onset do……they repeat what gives them comfort.
.
You write:
As do you and your fellow neotreads, nalbar.
As do you all.
Early onset Demzheimers?
I dunno.
How old are you?
Old enough to know better, I daresay.
But you don’t.
Demzheimers, one way or another.
But relax.
You’re not alone.
Not by a long shot.
Bet on it.
AG
Arthur provides the most direct confirmation imaginable that he is a far right wing nutcase.
Extreme hostility for liberals and progressives? Check.
Forwarding some the most clownish and delusional bullshit he can find on the Internet? Check.
What a wonderful community member.
But with the donald there is no consistent repeating. Remember how he flipped about on the Charlotteville “good people” comment. He is doing it again…NBC reports he now abandoned his agreement with Putin. Did that take minutes or hours. The donalds brain is no more than a shriveled hard rock.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-clarifies-comments-putin-says-i-m-u-s-intel-n8199
86?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
And in other news on the tax front from Huff Post–
Wait, what??? Raises taxes??
Uuuh yeah!
Current CBO projections are that the median middle-class family will see no more than a couple hundred dollars in reduction in the first year which is reduced to about $14-1500 hike within 5 years.
Dropping the exemption for state and local taxes will hit wealthier blue states much harder, and the pass through income (which in theory would help small businesses, is structured so that the benefits really dont’ start kicking in until you’re well into 1%-er territory.) Your average small business set as an LLC will gain almost nothing; the Trumps will hundreds of them will gain enormously
This has been describes as not so much a ‘tax cut’ bill as much as a ‘tax revenge’ bill on the part of the 0.01% on the rest of us.
It’s a blatant and huge transfer of wealth upwards, that they’re counting on to produce such gargantuan deficits that they can stampede people into eliminating Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and selling everything that isn’t nailed down to the plutocrats at fire-sale prices.
We’re gonna need lots and lots of guillotines.
Nice strategy there. Tax cuts begat large deficits so everyone knows expenses must be cut. So cut SSMM. Evil bastards!
That’s what the GOP has been trying to do for more than 40 years. They think the stars are now aligned to achieve it. I think they’ll reap the whirlwind if it passes.
I have two pieces of music inspired by that final sentiment. First, Berlioz.
Next, Geoff Zanelli pretending to be Hans Zimmer. He used the opening theme of the above from 0:48-1:08. It plays while Captain Jack Sparrow is led to the scaffold. Of course, he escapes.
Some factual points about the tax revenge bill:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-few-simple-questions-by-bloggersrus.html
Rep. DelBene (remember/bookmark that name!) shows how it’s done.
There’s a famous logical paradox called The Epimenides Paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox
“Epiminedes says all Cretans are liars.
“But Epimenedes himself is a Cretan.
“So are all Cretans really liars, or is Epimenides the Cretan lying about that and they’re not, but they are, or what . . . ?”
And so, down the rabbit hole.
Donald Trump says he talked to Putin who was VERY emphatic that Russia did not interfere with the election.
The Kremlin says Trump and Putin did NOT talk about the election.
And so, down the rabbit hole.
. . . to mention (at least while I’ve been paying attention . . . sort of . . . while fixing/eating breakfast) that Russia contradicted Trump, saying they didn’t talk about the Russian meddling in the election and investigation thereof, in their coverage of Trump’s statements and his subsequent “walking back” (as characterized by NPR) of them.
I found that “interesting” (as in “appalling”).
Thank you very much, karl pearson, for having saved the above comment from the dustbin where the coward nalbar attempted to send it with a zero rating. McCarthyite tactics like that do not belong on a so-called “progressive” blog, and if we are ever going to climb up out of the valley of defeat that has been handed to us by corporatist forces in both parties we must resist them at every turn.
Thanks again.
The freedoms of speech and thought are the bottom line of freedom.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. This above comment.
AG
So a low comment rating on a political blog is a “McCarthyite tactic”? Boy, you really want us to ignore what real McCarthyite tactics were meant to achieve.
Look, go back and read your comment. It was offensive. It’s crystal clear that you intended to offend the broad BooMan progressive community with that comment. It was the primary intent of your post. You weren’t intending to make a serious point outside that.
Is it your view that it is the duty of a progressive blog community to support people who come here to insult both the broad community and specific individuals in the community over and over again?
You’re earning consequences for your behaviors. You’re a Ron Paul evangelist; I would think you would support the premise of being made responsible for your actions.
. . . attention my neglect of my duty to give that trolling of yours the troll rating it merited. Neglect now rectified. In the process of which,
2) I discovered that whatever it was that has long prevented the ratings system here from working at my end has apparently ended (or we’ll see next time I’m inclined to uprate something; at any rate it worked for your earned troll rating of that comment you helpfully linked).
You probably haven’t noticed (cuz you’re you) that I virtually never downrate here. I normally find it better to express objections in substantive, direct reply to offending comments (even as I well understand the loss of patience of some others here with that approach for your case). For example, refuting your lies with documentary evidence. Like this. Your persistent abuse of this platform prompts the exception validating my rule. And, [betting auto-formatting here screws this up*]
3) your hilarious un-self-awareness of the irony in your “noble” (i.e., self-serving) “defense” of “the freedoms of speech and thought” . . .
via
. . . railing against the exercise of those freedoms by others, when at your expense.
Ridiculous, even by your standards.
[*well, whadayaknow, it didn’t!]
While I join many people in this community and in the broad Labor/Progressive movement in having problems with some of the outcomes of NAFTA, and was opposed to both the method of TPP negotiations and the final proposed deal, I’d ask those same progressives to consider the likelihood that the events which are taking place in the wake of Trump’s withdrawing of the U.S. from the deal will result in our nation being worse off domestically and internationally than we would have been if we had agreed to execute the TPP deal.
It’s also likely that if Trump became successful in destroying our NAFTA agreement that we would become worse off than we are now.
I want to be clear that I don’t see it as purely a binary choice. Could we have negotiated the TPP in better faith to all stakeholders in the U.S., particularly organizations representing the interests of workers, consumers and environmentalists? Yes.
Another question which is even more salient is: could we have gotten a much better TPP deal in the final set of proposed policies? If progressives here can explain how we would have gotten so many nations to agree to the best policies our interest groups would have liked to put in the deal I’d like to hear about it. Not everything in the best interests of our movements are things that all those nations would have seen to be in their interests.