White House officials claim that chief of staff John Kelly presents himself as a savior and calls Trump an "idiot" behind his back.

What an idiot.

Courtesy of NBC News:  

White House chief of staff John Kelly has eroded morale in the West Wing in recent months with comments to aides that include insulting the president's intelligence and casting himself as the savior of the country, according to eight current and former White House officials. 

The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone bulwark against catastrophe, curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an idiot" multiple times to underscore his point, according to four officials who say they've witnessed the comments.

Officials said Kelly's public image as a retired four-star general instilling discipline on a chaotic White House and an impulsive president belies what they describe as the undisciplined and indiscreet approach he's employed as chief of staff. The private manner aides describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself — just nine months into the job — grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at the White House. 

"He says stuff you can't believe," said one senior White House official. "He'll say it and you think, 'That is not what you should be saying.'"

Of course since this story broke earlier today Kelly has issued a statement pushing back on the allegations:  
“I am committed to our President, his agenda, and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”

Yeah, okay.

This is not the first time that we have heard that there is tension between Trump and his chief of staff, and apparently Kelly has been greatly marginalized as of late.

And also according to NBC News Kelly's negative remarks about the president are not the only thing that puts his job in jeopardy:

Current and former White House officials said Kelly has at times made remarks that have rattled female staffers. Kelly has told aides multiple times that women are more emotional than men, including at least once in front of the president, four current and former officials said. 

And during a firestorm in February over accusations of domestic abuse against then-White House staff secretary Rob Porter, Kelly wondered aloud how much more Porter would have to endure before his honor could be restored, according to three officials who were present for the comments. He also questioned why Porter's ex-wives wouldn't just move on based on the information he said he had about his marriages, the officials said. 

Some current and former White House officials said they expect Kelly to leave by July, his one-year mark. But others say it's anyone's guess. What's clear is both Trump and Kelly seem to have tired of each other. 

Move over Rex Tillerson it looks like you are about to have a little company in the "We Just Got Shitcanned Hotel."

So about that Stormy Daniels interview.....

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

What’s important here is the way Trump and his circle of enablers went about trying to cover up these (alleged) affairs, while Trump himself was seeking the top political office in the country. 

Trump’s personal lawyer and his allies at the National Enquirer used nondisclosure agreements to silence these women, taking a page from the corporate playbook. 

NDAs are already far too common in the business world, used to paper over a host of misdeeds, most crucially sexual harassment and discrimination. Disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein is perhaps the most egregious abuser of NDAs, which allowed him to harass and assault women for decades. 

“Donald Trump is acting like he personally owns this information, as though he can act like a king and take any measures to control the way people talk about him,” said Heidi Kitrosser, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota Law School. “You can’t do that when you’re acting with the power of the federal government.”

Now I will admit that is important to learn, but not so much because it reveals that Trump is a misogynist who controlled women with threats of lawsuits or used his wealth to buy their silence.

But what is most important about that is what Vox reported late last night: 

Stormy Daniels’ 60 Minutes interview was, in its way, fascinating. But it ultimately failed to shed light on the two most interesting questions posed by this entire imbroglio, presumably because Daniels herself doesn’t know the answer.

1. How many other sexual partners has Trump paid hush money to? 
2. How many foreign intelligences services know about one or more of those women? 

Trump has secrets that Trump regards as worth keeping. 

And while that put Daniels under pressure, it means that entities with more power and sophistication than an adult film actress can use those secrets to put pressure on Trump. The president has successfully cultivated an image as so flaky and incompetent, that his many baffling decisions on the world stage — from leaking Israeli intelligence to the Russian foreign minister to undercutting his own administration’s policy on Qatar to mysteriously leaving Japan off a list of allies exempted from steel tariffs — generally get written off as evidence that Trump is flaky and incompetent, rather than being actively manipulated by foreign actors.

Exactly!

Now I alluded to this last night in the comments section, because that is the truly relevant point that is being revealed with this interview, and the one Karen McDougal gave a few days ago.

Donald Trump's careless lifestyle has rendered him vulnerable to blackmail, and manipulation by just just about ANYBODY. And that includes foreign governments.

I am still in the first 100 pages of David Corn's book "Russian Roulette" but I have already learned that Donald Trump went to Russia a variety of times in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's, at least once at the invitation of the Kremlin.

We know that the Russian government has a habit of gathering embarrassing information on American celebrities and politicians that can be used later, yet Trump seems to have clumsily wandered into that lion's den on multiple occasions.

What's more, according to the book, Trump bragged to friends and associates that the Russian women were "without morals," which indicates to me that his interactions with them were less than dignified, and may in fact have been truly pornographic.

And of course all of this was talked about in that Christopher Steele dossier which the conservatives are so desperate to dismiss as "fake news."

So do I think there is a "pee tape?"

Hell, I think the pee tape might only be the first course in a depravity riddled sequence of DVDs which Donald Trump is desperate to see left buried until long after he has shuffled off this mortal coil.

And it was THAT probability which was driven home last night during this interview with Stormy Daniels.

P.S. By the way I would suggest that the trolls simply give up on trying to shame Stormy on social media.....

Yes, I am. Nice to meet ya! https://t.co/kUdVLRWwu0

— Stormy Daniels (@StormyDaniels) March 26, 2018

....it simply doesn't work.

Majority of Americans believe that owning a gun increases safety, a majority of the facts say that is bullshit.

Courtesy of Vox:

Does gun ownership make you safer? 

If you ask the general public, most Americans say it does. According to a new poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 58 percent of Americans agree with the statement that “[g]un ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.” In comparison, 38 percent agree with the statement that “[g]un ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing the chances for accidental misuse.” 

This is a shift from 1999, when 41 percent of Americans agreed with the first statement and 52 percent with the second. 

But if you look at the research, it seems the majority from 1999 had the right idea: Gun ownership decreases safety — on both an individual and collective level. 

Individually, several studies have found that the presence of a gun in a home elevates the risk of death. A 2014 review of the research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, found that access to firearms was associated with a doubled risk for homicide and a tripled risk for suicide. A 2017 piece by Melinda Wenner Moyer in Scientific American also ran through the evidence, concluding that gun ownership was associated with a higher risk of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings.

These facts need to be broadcast far and wide to counter the argument from the NRA and gun nuts who seem to think that banning military assault weapons would somehow render them impotent. 

The truth is that if they need a gun to make them feel safe, or like they are a real man, then they are already impotent.

Tucker Carlson gets a little panicky about white people becoming the minority in America.

#ICYMI Check out the segment from tonight about the changing demographics in America pic.twitter.com/eM1VJkN8OG

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 20, 2018

 Courtesy of Vox: 

On his top-rated Fox News show Tuesday night, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson opined on demographic change and immigration in America, saying that though “most immigrants are nice ... this is more change than human beings are designed to digest,” and asking viewers, “How would you feel if that happened in your neighborhood?”

The segment was focused on a National Geographic article featured in the magazine’s April issue. Though the article, centered on the Pennsylvania town of Hazleton, was titled “As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind,” Carlson focused his remarks on the growth of Hazleton’s Hispanic population, which has increased exponentially since 2000 — a change that Carlson said “makes societies volatile.” 

But he saved his strongest words for “our leaders ... who caused all this,” who, in his words, live in neighborhoods that “are basically unchanged — they look like it’s 1960. No demographic change in their zip code.” He concludes, “Our leaders are for diversity, just not where they live.”

My favorite line is  “How would you feel if that happened in your neighborhood?”

Perhaps Carlson should have some native Americans on and ask THEM that question.

It kind of sounds as if Tucker is suggesting that the uptick in violence that we have seen is due to the fact that there are more brown people in the country these days.

And his argument is not that THEY are being violent, but that there very presence incites violence from those who were here before them.

Essentially white people, right?

So rather than educate everybody to be more tolerant by teaching our children about different cultures and customs, while trying to create more inclusive activities in communities to unite the people living there, we should instead start blocking nonwhites from entering the country?

Let's call that the "Fox News solution. "

So there is a possibility that even if Robert Mueller is never fired we will never see his final report.

Courtesy of Vox: 

President Donald Trump spent the weekend publicly bashing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, raising new fears that the president might take the extreme step of actually firing Mueller in an attempt to end the probe. 

But even if the Mueller investigation survives, the public may never get to hear most of what he ultimately finds. 

That’s because Mueller is only required by law to deliver a confidential report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the investigation. And Rosenstein has no obligation to send the report to Congress or tell the public about it. Which means much of what Mueller uncovers may remain a secret. 

Now, Rosenstein could choose to make some or all of the report public, but he’s only required to notify Congress if Mueller proposes some action that is “so inappropriate or unwarranted” under Justice Department rules “that it should not be pursued.” So unless Mueller does something Rosenstein finds objectionable, he can keep the report secret. 

Mueller certainly knows this, which is why he’s using his indictments to reveal part of what he’s finding. “He is telling a story through the indictments that he files in court, which are painting a vivid picture of Russian efforts to interfere in the election,” Jens David Ohlin, the vice dean of Cornell Law School, told me. 

And because of the way the special counsel is set up, that picture may end up being the closest thing the public ever gets to a full accounting of what happened between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Well this is completely unacceptable.

After all of this time we need, no we DESERVE, to read that final report.

I'm hoping that even if Trump's Justice Department tries to bury this report that some intrepid Democrat will simply choose to leak it, or that there will be enough new liberal members of Congress elected in 2018 that they will vote to make this public despite Trump's efforts to quash it.

Of course admittedly that is less important to me than that Congress read the report and use it as justification for starting impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Massive study by the Rand Corporation finds that NRA backed gun policies actually increase the number of gun homicides and violent crime. Quick, put on your surprised face.

Courtesy of WaPo:

The best available evidence suggests two major National Rifle Association gun policy prescriptions — what are known as “stand your ground” self-defense laws and permissive concealed carry laws — increase homicides and violent crime. 

That is according to a massive new study by the RAND Corporation, an independent think tank. The group's experts scoured thousands of academic papers on gun violence in an effort to make definitive statements about how gun policies affect crime and safety. They winnowed that list down to only the highest-quality studies — just 62 in total — containing evidence capable of establishing a causal link between a gun policy change and a specific outcome. 

Because the RAND researchers' criteria for including studies in their final analysis were rigorous, for the majority of policies and outcomes, there was not enough good research to make any definitive statements — a clear indication of how little we know about how to prevent gun violence. But there were notable exceptions.

There is moderate evidence, for instance, that “stand your ground” laws, which remove the requirement for gun owners to attempt to retreat from a situation before using lethal force, increase total rates of homicide. A 2013 study, for instance, found that states passing such laws saw 6 percent to 11 percent increases in their total homicide rate. Another study found that Florida experienced a significant 24 percent increase in total homicides and 32 percent increase in firearm homicides following enactment of the stand-your-ground law in 2005.

Gee, how completely unsurprising.

Now if you are relatively new to the whole gun debate question, you may be asking yourself why is there is so little research into the impact that guns have on our society, the answer to that is both simple and infuriating.

Courtesy of Vox:  

For decades, the federal government, with the support of the National Rifle Association, has made it very difficult to answer a question at the heart of American public health and safety: Does gun control work? 

The answer is hugely important given that guns killed nearly 39,000 Americans in 2016 alone. But after research on gun violence in the 1990s found that firearms do not — contrary to NRA talking points — make people safer, the group backed a federal funding freeze on gun policy research.

That's right ladies and gentlemen, the reason that the government does not have reams of well researched data to back up their policy decisions, is because the NRA recognized decades ago that having access to that data would undermine their mythology about more guns leading to less gun fatalities.

Guns kill. Period.

And more guns, kill more people. Period.

And the NRA actually know this, which is why they have spent millions to obstruct research. Once again, period.

I think one of the first things that the blue wave of Democrats coming into Congress and the Senate in 2018 need to do is to is thaw out that gun research freeze from the 90's, and start accumulating some real data to use in order to move forward with comprehensive new gun control legislation.

Okay, it appears that Obamacare is safe. For now.

Courtesy of Vox:

The Affordable Care Act is going to survive. 

The 2010 health care law has slowly but surely moved out of the line of fire. President Trump barely mentioned it in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. At their annual retreat this week in West Virginia, top Republicans signaled that the repeal dream is likely over. 

After Doug Jones won the Alabama special Senate election in December, the bare Republican Senate majority has no viable path left for a more substantial repeal plan; the math in a 51-seat majority is too daunting. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) remain opposed to taking up repeal. Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already said that Republicans would probably move on from health care. 

So the party’s long-held promise to repeal Obamacare root and branch appears to be actually, finally dead. Of course, that hasn’t stopped Trump claiming, after his party’s tax overhaul passed in December with a repeal of the law’s individual mandate, that Republicans “have essentially repealed Obamacare.” But he’s wrong about that. 

Repealing the individual mandate is a legitimate blow to the Obamacare marketplaces, but doing so won’t unravel the markets entirely. They will function worse than they did before, and premiums will likely rise. 

But millions of people who receive generous tax subsidies to buy coverage will not feel the brunt of those cost increases. The law’s rules prohibiting health insurers from discriminating against preexisting conditions remain on the books. Finally, and most importantly, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which covered upward of 15 million people, remains untouched.

Well there's an island of good news in this sea of insanity at least.

Still, as pointed out in the article, the Affordable Care Act has been badly damaged, and it needs to be repaired and fine tuned.

Neither of those things will happen with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, so we desperately need to turn out the vote in 2018, and then again in 2020.

And whatever we do we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted with bullshit purity tests and Democratic infighting.

We are often our own worst enemies, but right now there are far more dangerous adversaries with which to deal.

House Republicans have voted to release the "secret memo" that was written by Devin Nunes to undermine the Robert Mueller investigation.

Courtesy of Vox: 

House Republicans have voted to release a controversial secret memo that has become a rallying point for allegations of bias in the Trump-Russia investigation. 

Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times reported that a House panel voted Monday along party lines to take the unprecedented move to release the memo, over the objections of the Justice Department and House Democratic colleagues. 

The Justice Department said making the document public would be “extraordinarily reckless” and represent a potential risk to national security and ongoing investigations. House Democrats have portrayed the memo’s release as a political ploy, designed to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign. 

President Donald Trump has five days to review the document and decide on its release, though he has previously indicated he wanted the memo made public.

It is already clear that Trump definitely wants this made public, as reported by Bloomberg:  

President Donald Trump’s frustrations with the Russia investigation boiled over on Air Force One last week when he learned that a top Justice Department official had warned against releasing a memo that could undercut the probe, according to four people with knowledge of the matter. 

Trump erupted in anger while traveling to Davos after learning that Associate Attorney General Stephen Boyd warned that it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release a classified memo written by House Republican staffers. The memo outlines alleged misdeeds at the FBI and Justice Department related to the Russia investigation. 

For Trump, the letter was yet another example of the Justice Department undermining him and stymieing Republican efforts to expose what the president sees as the politically motivated agenda behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

Of course the problem with the memo is that it will state conclusions based on classified information that it will not reveal, meaning that the Republicans can make various charges against the FBI and DOJ, without giving the press the opportunity to fact check them.

In other words it provides them the opportunity to create a reality that may in fact not, in any way, be related to actual reality.

The house Democrats want to poke a hole in that false reality by releasing a rebuttal memo, but it is unlikely to see the light of day:  

In an interview with me, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — the No. 2 Democrat on the House Intel Committee — noted, ominously, that there is a reasonable chance that Schiff’s rebuttal memo will never be released. Himes pointed out that Republicans on the committee could vote against its release, or, worse, if Republicans did vote to release it, that Trump could block it. 

“I’m under no illusion that there’s much probability at all that the Democratic memo ever sees the light of day,” Himes told me. “It is an extraordinarily detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of unbelievably shoddy allegations on the Republican side. If it were to get voted out of committee for public release, I would be very surprised if Trump didn’t block its release.”

Oh, I can hardly wait for the 2018 midterms.

Donald Trump says he is looking forward to being interviewed by Robert Mueller. Actually I think we are ALL looking forward to that.

Trump says he's "looking forward" to meeting Mueller's team in Russia probe https://t.co/kVdcoybW8Y pic.twitter.com/4BWFUR86tC

— POLITICO (@politico) January 25, 2018

Courtesy of the New York Times: 

“I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Mr. Trump said of talking to Mr. Mueller, answering months of speculation over whether he was willing to submit to questions from the special counsel, who is also believed to be looking into whether the Trump campaign aided Moscow’s effort and whether the president sought to thwart the inquiry itself. 

“Here’s the story, just so you understand,” Mr. Trump said during an impromptu question-and-answer session with reporters in the West Wing. “There’s been no collusion whatsoever. There’s no obstruction whatsoever, and I’m looking forward to it.” 

Mr. Trump suggested that his efforts to defend himself against damaging allegations had been unfairly misinterpreted as wrongdoing. 

“You fight back,” he said, and such a response is characterized as, “‘Oh, it’s obstruction.’”

(If by "fighting back" he means firing the agents responsible for an investigation directed at you, then yes, that is indeed obstructionism.) 

“I would love to do that — I’d like to do it as soon as possible,” the president told reporters on Wednesday of the prospect of being interviewed by Mr. Mueller, adding that his lawyers have told him it would be “about two to three weeks” until it takes place. Almost as an afterthought, he added, any such interview would be “subject to my lawyers, and all of that.”

Trump also said that he would be willing to answer questions under oath, while also claiming that Hillary did not do that, apparently not realizing that anytime you are questioned by a Special Counsel or the FBI that you are legally compelled to tell the truth. 

Of course right after this exchange Trump's attorney tried to walk it back, saying that Trump was "hurried" and misspoke. 

Gee, I wonder if he will feel hurried during the actual testimony?

It should be noted that there is an article on Vox, which states that Mueller's obstruction case appears damning. 

There is also a new Washington Post/ABC poll which shows that half of Americans believe that Trump colluded with the Russians, and slightly more than half believe he is obstructing the Russian investigations.

So it would appear that the only people who think that Donald Trump is safe from any prosecution, and that he did nothing wrong, are living safely inside the White House bubble.

Vox takes a hard look at Trump's New York Times interview and comes away with the belief that something is seriously wrong with the president.

I already shared with you my thoughts on this bizarre interview down below.

A number of other news outlets have also given their impressions, none of them very good.

However Ezra Klein of Vox News seems almost shaken by what he read in the interview: 

The president of the United States is not well. That is an uncomfortable thing to say, but it is an even worse thing to ignore.

This is nothing new as a lot of people, including licensed psychologists, have suggested that Trump is likely mentally ill.

However Klein seems to be really confronting that possibility for the first time here.

And he gives a a number of examples from the interview to support his concern.

Here is just one of them that I also found quite shocking: 

As for Trump’s contention that “it’s been proven that there is no collusion,” it’s hard to even know how to begin responding to that. In recent months, Trump’s former campaign manager and national security adviser have both been charged with crimes by Robert Mueller, and the investigation is not just ongoing but apparently widening in its scope and ferocity. Yet here is Trump’s take: 

"I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion. She’s the head of the committee. The Republicans, in terms of the House committees, they come out, they’re so angry because there is no collusion. So, I actually think that it’s turning out — I actually think it’s turning to the Democrats because there was collusion on behalf of the Democrats. There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion."

Sen. Feinstein has not said that she, or any of the ongoing investigations, has concluded that there was no collusion. What she has said is that investigators believe Trump may have obstructed justice in his efforts to derails inquiries into collusion: 

"The [Senate] Judiciary Committee has an investigation going as well and it involves obstruction of justice and I think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice."

It speaks to Trump’s habits of mind, to the sycophantic sources from which he prefers to get his news, that he heard something Feinstein said and has come to believe she has absolved him — yet misses the actual thing she said that threatens him.

Essentially it appears that Trump is not simply rejecting news that he finds critical of him, but is actually unable to even hear that news.

We have heard that Trump's daily briefings are shaped so as not to unduly upset him, but it really seems likely that even if he heard facts that displeased him he may not be able to absorb them or ascertain their meaning.

Here is how Klein ends the post: 

This is the president of the United States speaking to the New York Times. His comments are, by turns, incoherent, incorrect, conspiratorial, delusional, self-aggrandizing, and underinformed. This is not a partisan judgment — indeed, the interview is rarely coherent or specific enough to classify the points Trump makes on a recognizable left-right spectrum. As has been true since he entered American politics, Trump is interested in Trump — over the course of the interview, he mentions his Electoral College strategy seven times, in each case using it to underscore his political savvy and to suggest that he could easily have won the popular vote if he had tried. 

I am not a medical professional, and I will not pretend to know what is truly happening here. It’s become a common conversation topic in Washington to muse on whether the president is suffering from some form of cognitive decline or psychological malady. I don’t think those hypotheses are necessary or meaningful. Whatever the cause, it is plainly obvious from Trump’s words that this is not a man fit to be president, that he is not well or capable in some fundamental way. That is an uncomfortable thing to say, and so many prefer not to say it, but Trump does not occupy a job where such deficiencies can be safely ignored.

I agree with every word of this.

Simply put so long as Trump remains in the White House he puts this entire nation at risk, and that cannot be considered mere hyperbole.

Sometimes people respond to suggestions that Trump be impeached with "But would Mike Pence really be any better?"

And the simple answer to that is "Yes, of course he would, because at least he is sane."

FBI Deputy Director set to retire after blistering attack from Republicans and Twitter tirade from Donald Trump.

The President of the United States is a profoundly bad person. pic.twitter.com/YEu9lNbG3D

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) December 23, 2017

Courtesy of Vox: 

The reason Trump is so angry goes back to a long-running controversy over McCabe’s wife’s allegedly compromising political ties to Hillary Clinton. In 2015, McCabe’s wife ran for a state Senate seat in Virginia, backed in part with money provided by the state Democratic party and a Clinton ally — the “Clinton Puppets” in Trump’s first tweet. Trump and other Republicans have used this probe to argue that McCabe is secretly harboring an anti-Republican agenda. 

The reason it’s coming now, despite this having been known for over a year, is that McCabe’s name surfaced in a controversial text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was recently removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe over evidence of anti-Trump political bias. Strzok had mentioned someone named “Andy” in a text message with federal attorney Lisa Page, seeming to suggest there was a discussion about Trump — and not a positive one — in McCabe’s office. 

These revelations have led a number of prominent Republicans in Congress to outright call for McCabe’s firing. 

“He oughta be replaced. And I’ve said that before and I’ve said it to people who can do it,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told reporters earlier in the week. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chair of the House Oversight Committee, went even further during a Fox News appearance on Tuesday, suggesting that McCabe would likely be gone in the next week. 

But there is little evidence so far that McCabe harbors some kind of personal vendetta against the president, let alone any evidence that it’s affecting his job performance.

All of the reasons given above for this coordinated attempt to push McCabe out seem legitimate, and they may in fact be the reasons, but I tend to think there might be another reason.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee that former FBI Director James Comey told him about conversations he had with President Trump, including Trump’s request for loyalty, according to a new report. 

CNN reports that McCabe told lawmakers during his testimony this week that Comey told him about conversations he had with Trump after they occurred. 

McCabe told the committee that Comey also told him about Trump’s request for loyalty, according to CNN’s Manu Raju.

McCabe was one of the few people that James Comey confided in after having that bizarre meeting with Trump, during which he was asked to back off the Flynn investigation, and to pledge his loyalty to Trump.

In other words McCabe's testimony offers proof that Trump engaged in obstructionism.

Trump can't let that guy stick around, now can he?

 Of course it might be a little too late, since obviously McCabe has already shared this information with investigators. And could continue to do so whether he stays in the FBI or not.

Republican politicians are jumping ship in droves.

Courtesy of Vox:  

More and more Republicans are looking at how the 2018 elections are shaping up — and deciding they want no part of them. 

Last week, Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) all announced they would retire from Congress rather than run for reelection. This makes 12 House Republicans and two senators who are calling it quits, not counting several more who are stepping down to run for another political office. 

So far, that number of GOP retirements isn’t outside the historical norm. But reports have suggested that this is just the start, and that several more Republican House members — perhaps many more — will also soon announce they’ll head for the exits. And revealingly, only two House Democrats and zero Democratic senators have so far made the same choice. That’s a dramatic discrepancy. 

Though the explanations offered for these decisions differ, and some of these GOP-held seats are in no real danger of flipping to Democrats, these retirements are revealing how members of Congress currently view the national political environment. They think there’s a real possibility of a Democratic wave.

Okay, deep breath, don't get too excited. It is still a long time before the midterms.

Still, we have to admit that this IS good news. 

Title of new book by James Comey takes obvious and undeniable shot at Donald Trump.

.@mikeallen has the Comey book cover. pic.twitter.com/cBT786rrY4

— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 2, 2017

Courtesy of Vox: 

Any thought that former FBI Director James Comey was going to fade away into a quiet retirement after being publicly disparaged and fired by President Trump has officially gone out the window. 

On Thursday, Axios revealed the title of Comey’s forthcoming (and much-anticipated) memoir — and it’s an explicit, defiant jab at the president. 

The book is titled A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. It’s a direct reference to the now-infamous private dinner meeting between Comey and Trump at the White House in January in which the president demanded that Comey swear an oath of loyalty to him. 

Comey refused, promising Trump only that “You will always get honesty from me.”

I hope that last part is true because I am very interested in hearing some Comey honesty in this book.

I am currently in the middle of Stephen King's latest opus, but once I am finished with that I think Comey's book will be my next late night reading choice.

Poll shows that 59% of Americans believe this is the lowest point in US history that they can remember.

Courtesy of Vox: 

The APA has been conducting its Stress in America poll every year since 2007, and the latest one finds that 63 percent of Americans say the future of the country is a very significant source of stress in their lives. 

Even more tellingly, 59 percent said this is the “lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember.” And this sentiment transcended generations: A majority of baby boomers, Gen X-ers, millennials, and adults over the age of 72 felt it.

I am definitely part of this 59%.

Even 911, which rocked me to my core, at least later left me feeling that we could overcome anything.

Right now there is just a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness.

The only thing that brightens my outlook is the knowledge that the Mueller investigation exists and the hope that it will eventually lead to an end to all this. 

The Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a rather contentious Senate hearing today.

In case you missed Senator Al Franken rip apart Jeff Sessions lies, here's the clip. pic.twitter.com/jopVVIb6rx

— Red T Raccoon (@RedTRaccoon) October 18, 2017

Courtesy of the Business Insider:  

Attorney General Jeff Sessions engaged in a lengthy, heated exchange with Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota during a Senate hearing on Wednesday. The battle focused on what Sessions told the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing in January about his communications with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign. 

During a line of questioning from Franken in that January hearing, Sessions was asked what he would do as attorney general if he found evidence that "anyone affiliated with the Russian government" communicated with the Trump campaign through the election. Sessions said he was unaware of any such activities and insisted he "did not have communications with the Russians." 

It was later reported that Sessions had a handful of conversations during the campaign with the Russian ambassador to the US at the time, Sergey Kislyak. As a result, Sessions recused himself from all matters related to the Trump campaign and insisted he did not attempt to mislead the committee. 

"This allegation that a surrogate — and I had been called a surrogate for Donald Trump — had been meeting continuously with Russian officials, and that's what I — it struck me very hard, and that's what I focused my answer on," Session said on Wednesday in response to a question from Franken. "And in retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, 'But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, and that would be the ambassador.'" 

......

Franken said that once Sessions was confronted with the reports, he began to change his answer about whether he communicated with Russians. 

"So again, the goalpost has been moved," Franken said. "First, it was 'I did not have communications with Russians,' which was not true. Then it was 'I never met with any Russians to discuss any political campaign,' which may or may not be true. Now it's 'I did not discuss interference in the campaign,' which further narrows your initial blanket denial about meeting with the Russians. 

"Since you have qualified your denial to say that you did not 'discuss issues of the campaign with Russians,' what in your view constitutes issues of the campaign?" he said.

Sessions of course denied that "he had any improper discussions with the Russians at any time about the campaign."

This was by no means the only adversarial back and forth that Sessions had today.

While the death toll rises in Puerto Rico Donald Trump threatens to pull FEMA out.

"Puerto Rico survived the Hurricanes, now a financial crisis looms largely of their own making." says Sharyl Attkisson. A total lack of.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

...accountability say the Governor. Electric and all infrastructure was disaster before hurricanes. Congress to decide how much to spend....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

...We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2017

Jesus Christ! What a heartless POS!

The people of Puerto Rico are still in desperate need of help as this report by Vox clearly illustrates:  

Lives surely have been saved in the response. But images and reports from the ground tell a story of people, cut off from basic supplies and health care, dying. They tell of hospitals running out of medication and fuel for their generators and struggling to keep up with the “avalanche of patients that came after the hurricane,” as one journalist put it. 

The death toll from the hurricane is now up to 45, according to Gov. Ricardo Rosselló. But 90 percent of the 3.4 million American citizens on the island still don’t have power, and 35 percent still don’t have water to drink or bathe in. And given how deadly power outages can be, 45 deaths seems low, according to disaster experts. 

Vox found the official death toll to be a little suspicious, so they did a deeper dive:  

We searched Google News for reports of deaths in English and Spanish media from Puerto Rico since Hurricane Maria. We found reports of a total of 81 deaths linked directly or indirectly to the hurricane. Of those, 45 were the deaths certified by the government. The remaining 36 deaths were confirmed by local public officials or funeral directors, according to the reports. We also found another 450 reported deaths, most of causes still unknown, and reports of at least 69 people still missing. 

The broader issue here relates to how storm deaths are counted. There are clear deaths from the storm, clear deaths indirectly from the storm, and then deaths that are harder to determine — for instance, a sick patient who died in a hospital experiencing frequent power outages. And then there’s the issue of how effective authorities are at finding and investigating the deaths to make sure they’re included in the count. The breakdown of these categories suggests that the government is being much more cautious in designating deaths as directly or indirectly hurricane-related, given the public information available.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last night, a number of these fatalities were NOT the result of the initial hurricane, but the occurred in the aftermath because of a lack of food, water, or medical care.

And the death toll will only climb even higher if Trump pulls the relief effort.

But hey, why would he care?

After all these are only mostly brown people who cannot even vote in a presidential election.

While some suggest that Hillary Clinton should shut up and sit down, others are clearly anxious to hear what she has to say.

The line to buy Hillary Clinton's book this morning stretched around an entire New York City block, and maybe then some. pic.twitter.com/u7qrX0qhpQ

— Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) September 12, 2017

VIDEO. Enthusiastic welcome as Hillary Clinton arrives at Barnes & Noble for book signing for #WhatHappened. @wcbs880 pic.twitter.com/cjLOT0T5M6

— Peter Haskell (@peterhaskell880) September 12, 2017

Of course while this is going on some in the media are desperately trying to get Hillary to stop talking about the election and stop hijacking attention away from what is going on right now with Donald Trump's policy decisions and the Russia investigations.

However I am certainly not among those who want Hillary to stop talking, I am more on the side of wanting to hear her take on what happened during the campaign, because to be honest I think it is still happening and continues to threaten Democracy in this country.

I am also paying attention to the fact that whole lot of Hillary haters are taking this opportunity to continue the attacks on her that have been going on now for over thirty years.

Courtesy of Fortune: 

Some book critics say Clinton's latest title delivers the kind of authenticity that she's lacked in the past. The New York Times' Jennifer Senior calls the book a "feminist manifesto," "a score-settling jubilee," and "worth reading." Others, meanwhile, fault Clinton for using the 464-page text to blame players like Bernie Sanders, James Comey, and Vladimir Putin for the election defeat, rather than taking responsibility herself. 

And then there are the decidedly less analytical reviews that are already populating the book's Amazon listing. 

Given the current political climate and the venomous nature of the 2016 race, it's probably no surprise that critics of Clinton have used one-star reviews to further communicate their dislike of the former first lady, or in some cases, peddle conspiracy theories about Clinton and husband Bill.

Fortune points out that none of the reviews are from folks who are verified purchasers of her book which means they are simply attacking the book because her name is attached to it.

And of course the same was true for her campaign.

People did not listen to what she had to say because SHE was the one saying it.

If you ARE one of those people interested in what Hillary had to say, then I recommend that you watch this interview with Vox.

And after watching, or perhaps instead of watching, you can also read her words in the written version of the Vox interview. And see for yourself if this seems like somebody who deserves all of the hate and vitriol that surrounded her during the campaign. And still surrounds her today.

I would like to close this post by addressing the response that some have to the charge that a lot of the anger toward Hillary stemmed from the simple fact that she was a woman.

They respond that they were ready to elect a woman, but not THAT woman.

But the problem with that is the fact that THAT woman was running against THAT man.

So if you removed the gender difference and this were two men, or for the sake of argument two women, with the exact same baggage and the exact same qualifications that Trump and Hillary brought to the 2016 election, who do YOU really think would have won?

Update:

Putting my money where my mouth is. pic.twitter.com/5pQBb6YKfX

— Gryphen 2009 (@Gryphen2009) September 13, 2017

Just bought it today. Typically I purchase i-books and watch them on my tablet.

But this felt like a book I needed in hard copy for the old library.

Unable to defeat Obamacare in the Senate Donald Trump is just going to starve it to death instead.

Courtesy of Vox:

The Trump administration has let funding for Obamacare’s $63 million in-person outreach program lapse, leading to layoffs and confusion among nonprofits that enroll vulnerable populations in coverage. 

“I have delivered 10 layoff notices to staff members,” says Donna Friedsam, director of Covering Wisconsin. “We don’t have a funding flow anymore.” 

The government had previously announced it would cut the budget for Obamacare’s navigator program by 41 percent. But right now, the program has no funding at all. Last year’s grants ran out on September 1, and the administration still has not awarded next year’s money. 

The sudden funding halt comes at a critical time for the Affordable Care Act. Navigator groups were just beginning to ramp up outreach for the health law’s open enrollment period, which begins November 1. Now, some have done an about-face: They’ve canceled outreach work and appointments with potential enrollees because they have no budget to cover those costs. 

These groups often work with the most vulnerable populations enrolled under the Affordable Care Act. One-third of those who seek in-person help signing up for coverage do not have internet at home, and one in 10 do not speak English. 

You have to add this latest tactic to the ones already in underway to undermine the Affordable Care Act, such as weakening enforcement of the individual mandate, imposing employment requirements for Medicaid recipients, and refuse to do any advertising to bring new clients into the system.

Essentially Trump is working to kill the program through neglect.

However all this really does is to reinforce the need for the Medicare for all program that is now receiving so much support among Democrats.

That is why we need to turn out in huge numbers in 2018 and get as many new Democratic Senators and House members as possible.

There has rarely been a more important reason to get out the vote as we have right now, so if we cannot get our shit together in this midterm than we have nobody to blame for what happens next except for ourselves. 

The build up to war with North Korea has begun.

Courtesy of Vox: 

“There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s nuclear program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the Today show’s Matt Lauer. “He’s not going to allow — President Trump — the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile that could hit America. “If there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there,” Graham continued. 

“If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die over here — and he’s told me that to my face.” 

Graham’s press office confirmed that the senator was, in fact, reciting the details of a conversation he had with the president. According to Graham, the president “doesn’t want a war” — but would be willing to start one that would kill millions of people in the region if it came down to it. 

Graham went even further later in the interview, saying war between the United States and North Korea was “inevitable” under this president unless North Korea stops testing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). These missiles, Graham says, are an unacceptable threat to the American homeland — so Trump would go to war to stop them.

I actually believe that the talk of North Korea's ability to send a missile far enough to hit any city or state in America is overblown.

In a very short amount of time we have gone from mocking North Korea's efforts to build a working missile, to fear mongering about potentially being blown up in our sleep.

All of this feels far too similar to the selling of the Iraq War to me, and I am not buying it.

And the cost of this war could be catastrophic:

While all war game scenarios show the US winning a military confrontation, that victory could come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly in South Korea where millions of innocent people -- and nearly 30,000 US troops -- are already in range of North Korea's current missile capabilities. 

And that is not even considering the possibility that China may come to the aid of their longtime friend and ally. 

But none of that will matter to Trump, because keep in mind that this presidency is coming apart at the seams, and the ONLY thing that will distract the public from talk of investigations into Russian collusion, is the start of a new war.

This is what Republicans do, this is what they ALWAYS do, and yet people keep voting for them.

Angry over Russian sanctions, Putin retaliates.

Courtesy of Vox:

Russia will force the US diplomatic mission in the country to eliminate hundreds of people from its workforce by September 1, President Vladimir Putin told state TV in an interview that aired on Sunday. 

"More than 1,000 workers — diplomats and support staff — were working and are still working in Russia; 755 must stop their activity in the Russian Federation," Putin said, per Reuters. This does not mean, as early news reports suggested, that 755 US diplomats will be expelled from the country entirely — but it is a serious cut to America’s diplomatic presence in Russia. 

The order is retaliation, plain and simple. On Thursday night, Congress overwhelmingly passed a new package of sanctions on Russia as punishment for the nation’s interference in the US election. Late on Friday, the Trump administration announced its intention to sign the sanctions bill into law. The diplomatic staffing order is Putin showing he hasn’t been cowed. 

This is very much not normal; countries do not generally force other countries to limit their diplomatic presence so sharply, absent a major crisis in relations. It suggests instead that the pro-Russian stance Trump has taken, at least rhetorically, is not paying off — and that US-Russia relations are likely to keep getting worse for the foreseeable future.

I don't know about anybody else but I think we should have pulled these diplomats and their staffs out on our own after what Russia did during our last election, and drastically curtailed travel to and from that country except for humanitarian reasons.

What Russia did is an act of war.

And we should deal with it accordingly.

Let's face it Russia needs us WAY more than we need them. And Putin knows it.

I say we call his bluff and bring these people home and start treating Russia as an enemy of the state just like we would any terrorist organization that had hacked our government computers or detonated an explosive that took American lives.

(Disclaimer: I, in no way, have any hard feelings against the Russian people. I have had Russians as friends various times in my life. My anger and resentment is only directed at Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs that support him.)