I don't think Comey has been pushing a private agenda so much. I do think his book may have needed some editorial oversight. (Does anyone really care much about the size of
Trump's hands, for instance? Isn't it petty to mention it?)
Maybe not, but as I so often complain, the cogent criticisms are diminished by the snark. And it's really hard not to see a freakin' book tour at this juncture as cashing in.
Comey is potentially an important witness to Trump's behaviour re obstruction of justice. He will now be easier to discredit. 'Did you say that because it was true or simply to improve your book's sales prospects?'
I'm not sure whether a President can be charged
with obstruction of justice. But if proven it would I guess be grounds for impeachment.
Either way, I shouldn't think Mueller is too amused.
Let he (or she) who has never been conned cast the first stone.
Disagree. There's being conned by somebody who comes across as honest. But being conned by a known con-man with a 40 year history of being a conman and "CONMAN" written across his forehead is something else.
those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. when others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast (...) for some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spake to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it.
I had dealings with a con artist who was confronted by a no-nonsense friend of mine who absolutely knew this guy was full of it. He described meeting him as "he could look you in the eye and say 'I'm not here' and when you walked out of the room, you wondered 'was he there?'"
One thing The Faith of Donald J Trump has convinced me of is that this is exactly what Trump is like in person.
Rule one of conning is to make sure you're the smartest person in the room. Rule one of not being conned is to assume you're not.
One aspect of this that should not be lost from our vision is that the more the USA focuses inwardly on Trump and his latest shenanigans, the less attention is being paid to what is happening elsewhere in the world, especially with the likes of Russia and China. You can be sure that the strategists in those countries are licking their lips with the possibilities.
Take, for one example, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, over which Russia still casts a covetous eye. With a fully functioning US President, Russia would never dream of making a move on them. But if the Russians think that the US is too distracted, then they may well push a little bit and see what they can get away with. The same thing applies with China and Taiwan. (I am not suggesting that outright annexation is likely, but certainly that taking a few liberties may be on the cards. A boundary challenge here, a violation of air space there, that sort of thing.)
The point is this: the more that US (and especially the President) is perceived as unstable and unable to function properly, the more that rival powers will feel able to take risks that would have previously not been considered.
Comey is potentially an important witness to Trump's behaviour re obstruction of justice. He will now be easier to discredit. 'Did you say that because it was true or simply to improve your book's sales prospects?'
I don't think this is accurate. Donald Trump fired James Comey, abruptly and brutally. For anyone interested in dismissing his account as a fabrication that alone would be grounds enough to suggest motivated deception. The book doesn't alter that one way or the other. As far as matters of fact go, we have Comey's contemporaneous, pre-firing notes on his meetings with Trump which he distributed to trusted co-workers (thus preventing the accusation they were composed later). Unless someone is willing to posit Comey is playing an extremely long and extremely complicated game, the credibility of those notes shouldn't be altered by a later book deal.
I seem to be the odd man out at the moment. I kind of like it. No. I won't be coy. I love it.
On Comey, my wish is that he waited until the whole thing reached its conclusion and then released the book. Book tours and public interviews when you are one of the central figures in a major ongoing scandal and criminal investigation just seems foolish. My wife and I, both legally trained and she still practicing, cringe at the American penchant for lawyers to go on the news about their clients. It's almost as bad as going on the stand, or hiding your client from the cops in the roof of your office (my principal once did that), or leaving a file in the pub (me), or HAVING YOUR OFFICE RAIDED BY THE FBI! What an unethical klutz that Cohen bloke must be. I know of heaps of Cohens in America from the media I consume and he must be the worst.
On the voice of Saruman, I am currently in my ninth year of playing the online game The Lord of the Rings Online, although I have time off for good behavior. I have been a prisoner at Isengard, I have met Tom Bombadil and fought in the Barrows, I have seen evidence of fearsome battles on the peak of Weathertop, found a toy dog in the belly of a burrowing Norbog, and had many many other adventures. I have recently started a new character with which I propose to travel into the just-released region of MORDOR.
I'm disappointed by what I've seen from Comey over the last few days. The focus on snark and the feeling of a personal vendetta motivated by financial gain feed into the same sort of problems in terms of damage to institutions I was mentioning a minute ago.
Agreed. It's book promotion, aided by snark. I think he dented his own credibility in the ABC interview.
On the other hand, is it realistic to expect that our political system will appoint someone to the FBI directorship who is not an ambitious and political individual? Such individuals rarely make it to the top.
Yes, I accept the argument re contemporary notes. And from what is already published I think they are clear evidence of Presidential efforts to obstruct justice. I do continue to believe that the book and his obvious efforts to promote it via snark will damage his credibility re other testimony.
My wife and I, both legally trained and she still practicing, cringe at the American penchant for lawyers to go on the news about their clients. It's almost as bad as going on the stand, or hiding your client from the cops in the roof of your office (my principal once did that), or leaving a file in the pub (me), or HAVING YOUR OFFICE RAIDED BY THE FBI! What an unethical klutz that Cohen bloke must be. I know of heaps of Cohens in America from the media I consume and he must be the worst.
What I didn’t realize until now is that both [ alleged Russian mob boss Evsei ] Agron and his successor [ Marat ] Balagula ran their operations out of an office in the El Caribe social club. So the El Caribe wasn’t just a mob hangout. From the 70s through the 90s at least, the bosses of the Russian mafia in the U.S. literally ran their crime organization out of the El Caribe.
So Michael Cohen’s uncle Morton Levine’s social club was the headquarters of Russian organized crime in the U.S.
That’s quite something.
The AP article includes another detail.
According to Levine, who is apparently still alive, all his nieces and nephews owned shares of the El Caribe and still do. Levine told the AP that Michael Cohen owned his stake in the club until Donald Trump was elected President when he “gave up his stake.”
From what I can gather it's these connections rather than his connections to Trump that got Cohen raided by the FBI. However, one has to wonder how someone takes a high profile position as the personal attorney to the American president* and not expect the kind of scrutiny that turns up stuff like this?
I agree Eutychus, but I wonder if taking the Presidency down a peg or two will ultimately be good for governance in the United States? I posit it as a potential silver lining only.
I think the real silver lining is that hidden things-- dark, horrible shameful things like racism, misogyny, and utter, craven selfishness-- are being brought into the light. It's like having a horrible pile of s**t on your face that you didn't know was there until you turned on the light and looked in the mirror. It's gross, it's disgusting-- but it's better to know that it's there so you can deal with it instead of keep it hidden. Along with that I would say is the invigorated resistance. We have spent 8 years of complacency-- where we could afford to watch mindless soap operas or sci fi flicks cuz there was an adult in charge who would handle stuff. Now we have been driven to action and that's good-- there's a greater awareness of the significance of our times, the consequences of our actions (or inactions), a greater willingness to be inconvenienced and to face fear directly.
I think the real silver lining is that hidden things-- dark, horrible shameful things like racism, misogyny, and utter, craven selfishness-- are being brought into the light.
Racism and misogyny weren't "hidden things" unless you were white and male. I suppose they could count as "hidden" in the sense of being 'things no one talks about openly', but that's different than being something "you didn't know was there".
Trevor Noah's take on the Hannity revelation is pretty brilliant, as expected. On Hannity's claim that he and Cohen talked "exclusively almost" about real estate: "If someone tells you that they exclusively almost have sex with adults, you're not hiring them to babysit your kids."
On Hannity's claim that he and Cohen talked "exclusively almost" about real estate: "If someone tells you that they exclusively almost have sex with adults, you're not hiring them to babysit your kids."
I think it's worth noting that the ostensible source of the Stormy Daniels hush money was a home equity loan. The fact that Hannity was discussing real estate with Cohen is suggestive along those lines. That's rampant speculation, of course, but that's what happens when there's an absence of facts. Narrative abhors a vacuum.
Yes, worth watching. Comey was Colbert's only interview guest last night, and the result was both playful and serious. Comey even played along with the humor!
I'm looking forward to that interview with Colbert, but also to the one he's giving to Leigh Sales, our flagship current affairs (real current affairs) show host.
I'm also looking forward to seeing Hillary Clinton in person at the Melbourne Convention Centre on 10 May. Looking forward is not the phrase. I'm massively excited. I hope I calm down before the speech or I might faint when she comes on. It's marketed as a corporate event, so I put down Fanboy Pty Ltd as my company. Honestly, I am giddy. I never thought I'd get to see her in person.
I guess sometimes you have to shake the dust off your feet and move on. Tony Campolo, one of the co-authors, has been warning about this poisonous political-religious partnership for a very long time. His 'reward' for doing so has been denigration.
Trump's reward for deciding to jump onto this baleful bandwagon is more obvious.
I keep waiting and praying for the comeuppance. Seems to be a long time coming.
There are more evangelicals than white US evangelicals, and I suspect many of those white US evangelicals are deceived about Trump rather than as evil as he is.
One of the "you" is certainly me. In visits to the US in recent years I have tried dialogue with a few representatives of the baleful coalition (pre-Trump, that is) and it was like talking to a brick wall. If I lived there, I would follow the example of Rachel Held Evans and walk away. Unlike the UK, I would feel I had no option. Minds appear to be too closed to reach.
Campolo is big on social justice (as are a few others), which is why from the 80s onwards he has been warning about the privatisation of the gospel and the extreme focus on hot button issues of personal morality. But his and other like him represent minority voices. And they get cut off lists of "sound" preachers and teachers in large segments of the white evangelical community.
"Soundness" is a control mechanism, producing a kind of self-censorship. So folks get stuck in a ghetto, listening largely to self-reinforcing messages. Protesting protestants? More like conforming nonconformists. An oxymoron, in any other age but this.
Having a mind of your own is going out of fashion.
Campolo is big on social justice (as are a few others), which is why from the 80s onwards he has been warning about the privatisation of the gospel and the extreme focus on hot button issues of personal morality.
Tied to this I think that in the longer term the fact that evangelicals in America have chosen to tie their religious standard to a particular set of economic policies is going to have a large (and generally deleterious) set of knock on effects.
I agree, wholeheartedly. Earlier in the thread, Eutychus provided a link to some bible study material being used in the White House. It sought to minimise any social responsibilities via civil authorities for the poor and the marginalised. It gave a green light to economic policies with minimal direct social concern. I'll dig back for the link.
Yes I saw that - and given the age of many of the people pushing these kinds of policies within evangelicalism (Wayne Grudem being another), I can see it causing further generational problems within the movement.
I found Gerson's account interesting for its omissions and mis-directed focus. The thing to keep in mind about Michael Gerson is that he's essentially a propagandist. As George W. Bush's speechwriter he's credited with the "Axis of Evil" speech and Condi Rice's "smoking gun/mushroom cloud".
Gerson spends a lot of time on the Northern evangelical tradition without any real acknowledgement that this is not the dominant tradition among today's evangelicals. Southern (white) evangelicalism is, which took a very different position on slavery and abolition. He also very glibly passes over the fact that the primary motivator for (white) evangelicals' increasing political engagement was as a rearguard action to defend segregation. Consider this very minimal description of (white) evangelical political involvement:
After shamefully sitting out (or even opposing) the civil-rights movement, white evangelicals became activated on a limited range of issues. They defended Christian schools against regulation during Jimmy Carter’s administration.
What Gerson conveniently leaves out is that these two sentences are talking not about two different things, but the same thing. The "Christian schools" mentioned were segregation academies and the unspecified "regulation[ s ]" being imposed on them were forcing them to choose between racial discrimination and their status as tax-exempt non-profits. Most (white) evangelicals regarded this as a rank betrayal by fellow (white) evangelical Carter and was a big boost towards integrating (white) evangelicals with the Republican party.
Gerson eventually gets to two paragraphs at the end of his (very) long form essay where he simply hand-waves away the notion that (white) evangelicals could be motivated by racism. Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that a group with such strong and (relatively) recent ties to segregation might support Trump because of his racist and anti-immigrant stances rather than in spite of them?
I am not surprised that America's most prestigious and longest-running journal of white supremacy does not tackle any of these issues
Are we talking about the same Atlantic that I know? It is far from being a white supremacy journal. It was the first to endorse Abraham Lincoln for presidency and it advocated for the abolition of slavery--one of the animating reasons it was founded. It rarely endorses a political candidate. It did endorse LBJ over Barry Goldwater, and it also endorsed Hilary Clinton over Trump--one of the reasons why they went to Clinton was because of Trump's racism. It also published Dr Martin Luther King's defense of civil disobedience in his Letters from a Birmingham Jail in 1963. And it published William Parker's slave narrative "A Freedman's Journey" in 1866.
The Atlantic has consistently been a moderate magazine, but it has published pieces from all sides of the political spectrum.
BTW, The Atlantic has always been published in Boston, and has had Boston based ownership since its founding.
I am not surprised that America's most prestigious and longest-running journal of white supremacy does not tackle any of these issues
Are we talking about the same Atlantic that I know?
No, I'm referring to the other link, the one to the National Review. You know, the one that Stands Athwart History Yelling 'Stop'. The one that vigorously made the case for Why the South Must Prevail. The one explicitly mentioned at the link included in my original quote that you managed to delete and I re-included above.
I found Gerson's account interesting for its omissions and mis-directed focus. The thing to keep in mind about Michael Gerson is that he's essentially a propagandist. As George W. Bush's speechwriter he's credited with the "Axis of Evil" speech and Condi Rice's "smoking gun/mushroom cloud".
Gerson spends a lot of time on the Northern evangelical tradition without any real acknowledgement that this is not the dominant tradition among today's evangelicals. Southern (white) evangelicalism is, which took a very different position on slavery and abolition.
Yes, and the placement in the Atlantic - with a mostly secular, mostly liberal audience - made me wonder exactly what the purpose of the article was.
And mostly agree with the comments on the French article - it was interesting to me because even he was forced to admit at the end that in supporting Trump the Evangelicals have more or less operated in exactly the same way as any other pressure group.
I found Gerson's account interesting for its omissions and mis-directed focus. The thing to keep in mind about Michael Gerson is that he's essentially a propagandist. As George W. Bush's speechwriter he's credited with the "Axis of Evil" speech and Condi Rice's "smoking gun/mushroom cloud".
Gerson spends a lot of time on the Northern evangelical tradition without any real acknowledgement that this is not the dominant tradition among today's evangelicals. Southern (white) evangelicalism is, which took a very different position on slavery and abolition.
Yes, and the placement in the Atlantic - with a mostly secular, mostly liberal audience - made me wonder exactly what the purpose of the article was.
I'm guessing it's a way for Michael Gerson to try to distance himself from the Republican party he's spent most of his adult life serving and helping to achieve power, aided and abetted by his fellow evangelicals. You'll note that most of the article, aside from a couple paragraphs of personal evangelical background, the way he talks about both groups (Republicans and evangelicals) you'd hardly know he himself is a member. He also seems to have trouble typing the word "Republican", seeming to prefer such obfuscatory phrases as "Trump supporters" and "Trump-allied religious leaders". Thus Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Franklin Graham "followed Trump’s lead in supporting Judge Roy Moore", rather than following the lead of the Republican party that chose Moore as their nominee. This is similar to what happened in early 2009, when a whole bunch of new "independents" suddenly showed up, claiming that they'd never heard of this "George W. Bush" person and that history had suddenly started on January 20.
I think the real silver lining is that hidden things-- dark, horrible shameful things like racism, misogyny, and utter, craven selfishness-- are being brought into the light.
Racism and misogyny weren't "hidden things" unless you were white and male. I suppose they could count as "hidden" in the sense of being 'things no one talks about openly', but that's different than being something "you didn't know was there".
For someone like me— white, living in a blue state — the extent of it truly was hidden. Yes my friends of color laugh— they of course did see it all along. But that’s the silver lining— that now finally, sadly far too late, we’re finally seeing what they were talking about
Campolo is big on social justice (as are a few others), which is why from the 80s onwards he has been warning about the privatisation of the gospel and the extreme focus on hot button issues of personal morality. But his and other like him represent minority voices. And they get cut off lists of "sound" preachers and teachers in large segments of the white evangelical community.
"Soundness" is a control mechanism, producing a kind of self-censorship. So folks get stuck in a ghetto, listening largely to self-reinforcing messages. Protesting protestants? More like conforming nonconformists. An oxymoron, in any other age but this.
Having a mind of your own is going out of fashion.
I’m pretty well enmeshed in American evangelicalism. I think you’re mischaracterizing Campolos influence in the movement. He’s not nearly as much of a minority as you’re making him out to be. Indeed, there are quite a number of prominent leaders speaking out in similar vein— especially since the election. Mark Labberton, president of Fuller Seminary (arguably the most influential evangelical seminary) in particular has spoken our clearly and courageously on progressive issues. But it does seem clear the movement is breaking in two— we have two such drastically different sets of beliefs as to almost not be the same religion.
In the eventual divorce it does appear the trumpsters will be the ones who retain use of the family name, even tho the progressive wing has far more in common with historic evangelicalism. But the name is worse than useless now. For now I’m just calling myself “Wesleyan”
Trump is reportedly bringing Rudy Giuliani on to represent him in the Mueller probe. Trump says that Giuliani is interested in bringing the matter to a swift resolution "for the good of the country."
...Take, for one example, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, over which Russia still casts a covetous eye. With a fully functioning US President, Russia would never dream of making a move on them. But if the Russians think that the US is too distracted, then they may well push a little bit and see what they can get away with. The same thing applies with China and Taiwan. (I am not suggesting that outright annexation is likely, but certainly that taking a few liberties may be on the cards. A boundary challenge here, a violation of air space there, that sort of thing.)
My reading is that China will continue to try and claim control over the South China Sea because it is in their strategic interests to do so and because they regard Trumpian USA as being unlikely to pay much attention or do much about it anyway.
I thought that was par for the course in the South China Sea. They've built their own islands to put freaking military bases on them. The big news was the rumors of discussions between China and Vanuatu to put a military facility there. That caused every right-thinking person in Australia and New Zealand to act like a Meerkat. Stuff the South China Sea, they want to control the whole fucking Pacific. Suddenly not even the racists are talking about cutting foreign aid again.
The big news was the rumors of discussions between China and Vanuatu to put a military facility there. That caused every right-thinking person in Australia and New Zealand to act like a Meerkat.
Rumours which Vanuatu has consistently denied .
I believe them; Vanuatu has a history of non-alignment, they take their independence seriously, having been the only Pacific country which actually struggled for independence, and they have a very cluey Foreign Minister at the moment.
As you probably know Marama, Australians are quite nervous about China. I admit that China is the latest in a series of potential enemies used as bogeymen, stretching all the way back to France during the Napoleonic Wars. A rumor like that is more than enough to get us meerkating. I wonder whose interests that serves?
Yes, a good question.
Perhaps the strategic/intelligence community - looking for more funds. Or am I being too cynical? This article , written by a friend of mine, gives another perspective
I'm guessing it's a way for Michael Gerson to try to distance himself from the Republican party he's spent most of his adult life serving and helping to achieve power, aided and abetted by his fellow evangelicals.
Yes, just seemed to be a strange place to start a never-Trump campaign.
Yes, I accept the argument re contemporary notes. And from what is already published I think they are clear evidence of Presidential efforts to obstruct justice.
Speaking of the Comey memos, you can now read a redacted version [PDF] for yourself. Two interesting bits of metadata. First, it apparently took all of thirty-nine minutes for House Republicans to leak the memos to the press. Second, House Republicans apparently thought these memos would make Trump look good, which illustrates the danger of a dealer getting hooked on their own supply.
The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Friday against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump.
The complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there.
“During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.
“This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency,” he said.
The case asserts that the Russian hacking campaign — combined with Trump associates’ contacts with Russia and the campaign’s public cheerleading of the hacks — amounted to an illegal conspiracy to interfere in the election that caused serious damage to the Democratic Party.
The suit does not include Donald Trump himself, but names (among others) Don Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Julian Assange, Aras and Emin Agalarov, Wikileaks, and the GRU. Pretty much the entire rogues gallery of the Trump campaign and (allegedly) associated outsiders. The article notes that the DNC was able to win a similar suit against the Republicans relating to the Watergate break-in back in the 70s.
Whoo! Is there a prison big enough to accommodate all these people, once they're convicted?
You do know that the three points of a civil suit is 1) to get full disclosure on what happened behind the scenes--and maybe force someone to give up his tax returns; 2) to seek monetary damages; and, 3) to force a change in election laws so that it cannot happen again.
No one is going to jail in this suit directly, unless they incriminate themselves in their depositions, and then that will be forwarded to prosecutors.
Also, by filing a civil suit, Trump would not be able to fire anyone. Nor could he pardon anyone as the case goes forward.
Comments
Trump's hands, for instance? Isn't it petty to mention it?)
I'm not sure whether a President can be charged
with obstruction of justice. But if proven it would I guess be grounds for impeachment.
Either way, I shouldn't think Mueller is too amused.
One thing The Faith of Donald J Trump has convinced me of is that this is exactly what Trump is like in person.
Rule one of conning is to make sure you're the smartest person in the room. Rule one of not being conned is to assume you're not.
Take, for one example, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, over which Russia still casts a covetous eye. With a fully functioning US President, Russia would never dream of making a move on them. But if the Russians think that the US is too distracted, then they may well push a little bit and see what they can get away with. The same thing applies with China and Taiwan. (I am not suggesting that outright annexation is likely, but certainly that taking a few liberties may be on the cards. A boundary challenge here, a violation of air space there, that sort of thing.)
The point is this: the more that US (and especially the President) is perceived as unstable and unable to function properly, the more that rival powers will feel able to take risks that would have previously not been considered.
I don't think this is accurate. Donald Trump fired James Comey, abruptly and brutally. For anyone interested in dismissing his account as a fabrication that alone would be grounds enough to suggest motivated deception. The book doesn't alter that one way or the other. As far as matters of fact go, we have Comey's contemporaneous, pre-firing notes on his meetings with Trump which he distributed to trusted co-workers (thus preventing the accusation they were composed later). Unless someone is willing to posit Comey is playing an extremely long and extremely complicated game, the credibility of those notes shouldn't be altered by a later book deal.
On Comey, my wish is that he waited until the whole thing reached its conclusion and then released the book. Book tours and public interviews when you are one of the central figures in a major ongoing scandal and criminal investigation just seems foolish. My wife and I, both legally trained and she still practicing, cringe at the American penchant for lawyers to go on the news about their clients. It's almost as bad as going on the stand, or hiding your client from the cops in the roof of your office (my principal once did that), or leaving a file in the pub (me), or HAVING YOUR OFFICE RAIDED BY THE FBI! What an unethical klutz that Cohen bloke must be. I know of heaps of Cohens in America from the media I consume and he must be the worst.
On the voice of Saruman, I am currently in my ninth year of playing the online game The Lord of the Rings Online, although I have time off for good behavior. I have been a prisoner at Isengard, I have met Tom Bombadil and fought in the Barrows, I have seen evidence of fearsome battles on the peak of Weathertop, found a toy dog in the belly of a burrowing Norbog, and had many many other adventures. I have recently started a new character with which I propose to travel into the just-released region of MORDOR.
On the other hand, is it realistic to expect that our political system will appoint someone to the FBI directorship who is not an ambitious and political individual? Such individuals rarely make it to the top.
Yes, I accept the argument re contemporary notes. And from what is already published I think they are clear evidence of Presidential efforts to obstruct justice. I do continue to believe that the book and his obvious efforts to promote it via snark will damage his credibility re other testimony.
Being a part owner of the club used as the operational headquarters of New York's Russian mafia is probably not a good thing either.
From what I can gather it's these connections rather than his connections to Trump that got Cohen raided by the FBI. However, one has to wonder how someone takes a high profile position as the personal attorney to the American president* and not expect the kind of scrutiny that turns up stuff like this?
I think the real silver lining is that hidden things-- dark, horrible shameful things like racism, misogyny, and utter, craven selfishness-- are being brought into the light. It's like having a horrible pile of s**t on your face that you didn't know was there until you turned on the light and looked in the mirror. It's gross, it's disgusting-- but it's better to know that it's there so you can deal with it instead of keep it hidden. Along with that I would say is the invigorated resistance. We have spent 8 years of complacency-- where we could afford to watch mindless soap operas or sci fi flicks cuz there was an adult in charge who would handle stuff. Now we have been driven to action and that's good-- there's a greater awareness of the significance of our times, the consequences of our actions (or inactions), a greater willingness to be inconvenienced and to face fear directly.
Racism and misogyny weren't "hidden things" unless you were white and male. I suppose they could count as "hidden" in the sense of being 'things no one talks about openly', but that's different than being something "you didn't know was there".
I think it's worth noting that the ostensible source of the Stormy Daniels hush money was a home equity loan. The fact that Hannity was discussing real estate with Cohen is suggestive along those lines. That's rampant speculation, of course, but that's what happens when there's an absence of facts. Narrative abhors a vacuum.
It helped me to evaluate the snark and truth dimensions. Comey struck me as a truth-teller.
I'm also looking forward to seeing Hillary Clinton in person at the Melbourne Convention Centre on 10 May. Looking forward is not the phrase. I'm massively excited. I hope I calm down before the speech or I might faint when she comes on. It's marketed as a corporate event, so I put down Fanboy Pty Ltd as my company. Honestly, I am giddy. I never thought I'd get to see her in person.
I guess sometimes you have to shake the dust off your feet and move on. Tony Campolo, one of the co-authors, has been warning about this poisonous political-religious partnership for a very long time. His 'reward' for doing so has been denigration.
Trump's reward for deciding to jump onto this baleful bandwagon is more obvious.
I keep waiting and praying for the comeuppance. Seems to be a long time coming.
There are more evangelicals than white US evangelicals, and I suspect many of those white US evangelicals are deceived about Trump rather than as evil as he is.
A few more recent reflections on the Trump/Evangelical connection:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-last-temptation/554066/
and a response here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/evangelicals-support-donald-trump-political-realities-2016-election/
Campolo is big on social justice (as are a few others), which is why from the 80s onwards he has been warning about the privatisation of the gospel and the extreme focus on hot button issues of personal morality. But his and other like him represent minority voices. And they get cut off lists of "sound" preachers and teachers in large segments of the white evangelical community.
"Soundness" is a control mechanism, producing a kind of self-censorship. So folks get stuck in a ghetto, listening largely to self-reinforcing messages. Protesting protestants? More like conforming nonconformists. An oxymoron, in any other age but this.
Having a mind of your own is going out of fashion.
Tied to this I think that in the longer term the fact that evangelicals in America have chosen to tie their religious standard to a particular set of economic policies is going to have a large (and generally deleterious) set of knock on effects.
And here it is.
Yes I saw that - and given the age of many of the people pushing these kinds of policies within evangelicalism (Wayne Grudem being another), I can see it causing further generational problems within the movement.
I found Gerson's account interesting for its omissions and mis-directed focus. The thing to keep in mind about Michael Gerson is that he's essentially a propagandist. As George W. Bush's speechwriter he's credited with the "Axis of Evil" speech and Condi Rice's "smoking gun/mushroom cloud".
Gerson spends a lot of time on the Northern evangelical tradition without any real acknowledgement that this is not the dominant tradition among today's evangelicals. Southern (white) evangelicalism is, which took a very different position on slavery and abolition. He also very glibly passes over the fact that the primary motivator for (white) evangelicals' increasing political engagement was as a rearguard action to defend segregation. Consider this very minimal description of (white) evangelical political involvement:
What Gerson conveniently leaves out is that these two sentences are talking not about two different things, but the same thing. The "Christian schools" mentioned were segregation academies and the unspecified "regulation[ s ]" being imposed on them were forcing them to choose between racial discrimination and their status as tax-exempt non-profits. Most (white) evangelicals regarded this as a rank betrayal by fellow (white) evangelical Carter and was a big boost towards integrating (white) evangelicals with the Republican party.
Gerson eventually gets to two paragraphs at the end of his (very) long form essay where he simply hand-waves away the notion that (white) evangelicals could be motivated by racism. Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that a group with such strong and (relatively) recent ties to segregation might support Trump because of his racist and anti-immigrant stances rather than in spite of them?
I am not surprised that America's most prestigious and longest-running journal of white supremacy does not tackle any of these issues.
Are we talking about the same Atlantic that I know? It is far from being a white supremacy journal. It was the first to endorse Abraham Lincoln for presidency and it advocated for the abolition of slavery--one of the animating reasons it was founded. It rarely endorses a political candidate. It did endorse LBJ over Barry Goldwater, and it also endorsed Hilary Clinton over Trump--one of the reasons why they went to Clinton was because of Trump's racism. It also published Dr Martin Luther King's defense of civil disobedience in his Letters from a Birmingham Jail in 1963. And it published William Parker's slave narrative "A Freedman's Journey" in 1866.
The Atlantic has consistently been a moderate magazine, but it has published pieces from all sides of the political spectrum.
BTW, The Atlantic has always been published in Boston, and has had Boston based ownership since its founding.
No, I'm referring to the other link, the one to the National Review. You know, the one that Stands Athwart History Yelling 'Stop'. The one that vigorously made the case for Why the South Must Prevail. The one explicitly mentioned at the link included in my original quote that you managed to delete and I re-included above.
Yes, and the placement in the Atlantic - with a mostly secular, mostly liberal audience - made me wonder exactly what the purpose of the article was.
And mostly agree with the comments on the French article - it was interesting to me because even he was forced to admit at the end that in supporting Trump the Evangelicals have more or less operated in exactly the same way as any other pressure group.
I'm guessing it's a way for Michael Gerson to try to distance himself from the Republican party he's spent most of his adult life serving and helping to achieve power, aided and abetted by his fellow evangelicals. You'll note that most of the article, aside from a couple paragraphs of personal evangelical background, the way he talks about both groups (Republicans and evangelicals) you'd hardly know he himself is a member. He also seems to have trouble typing the word "Republican", seeming to prefer such obfuscatory phrases as "Trump supporters" and "Trump-allied religious leaders". Thus Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Franklin Graham "followed Trump’s lead in supporting Judge Roy Moore", rather than following the lead of the Republican party that chose Moore as their nominee. This is similar to what happened in early 2009, when a whole bunch of new "independents" suddenly showed up, claiming that they'd never heard of this "George W. Bush" person and that history had suddenly started on January 20.
For someone like me— white, living in a blue state — the extent of it truly was hidden. Yes my friends of color laugh— they of course did see it all along. But that’s the silver lining— that now finally, sadly far too late, we’re finally seeing what they were talking about
I’m pretty well enmeshed in American evangelicalism. I think you’re mischaracterizing Campolos influence in the movement. He’s not nearly as much of a minority as you’re making him out to be. Indeed, there are quite a number of prominent leaders speaking out in similar vein— especially since the election. Mark Labberton, president of Fuller Seminary (arguably the most influential evangelical seminary) in particular has spoken our clearly and courageously on progressive issues. But it does seem clear the movement is breaking in two— we have two such drastically different sets of beliefs as to almost not be the same religion.
In the eventual divorce it does appear the trumpsters will be the ones who retain use of the family name, even tho the progressive wing has far more in common with historic evangelicalism. But the name is worse than useless now. For now I’m just calling myself “Wesleyan”
I don't want to say "I told you so" but...
Australian warships challenged by Chinese Navy in South China Sea
My reading is that China will continue to try and claim control over the South China Sea because it is in their strategic interests to do so and because they regard Trumpian USA as being unlikely to pay much attention or do much about it anyway.
Rumours which Vanuatu has consistently denied .
I believe them; Vanuatu has a history of non-alignment, they take their independence seriously, having been the only Pacific country which actually struggled for independence, and they have a very cluey Foreign Minister at the moment.
Well, we'll see - I wouldn't bank on that. Australia's lack of action on climate change is also a very sore point in the Islands.
Perhaps the strategic/intelligence community - looking for more funds. Or am I being too cynical?
This article , written by a friend of mine, gives another perspective
Yes, just seemed to be a strange place to start a never-Trump campaign.
Speaking of the Comey memos, you can now read a redacted version [PDF] for yourself. Two interesting bits of metadata. First, it apparently took all of thirty-nine minutes for House Republicans to leak the memos to the press. Second, House Republicans apparently thought these memos would make Trump look good, which illustrates the danger of a dealer getting hooked on their own supply.
The suit does not include Donald Trump himself, but names (among others) Don Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Julian Assange, Aras and Emin Agalarov, Wikileaks, and the GRU. Pretty much the entire rogues gallery of the Trump campaign and (allegedly) associated outsiders. The article notes that the DNC was able to win a similar suit against the Republicans relating to the Watergate break-in back in the 70s.
Reminds me of the prison scenes in that film about the Nuremberg Trials (with Alec Baldwin as the US prosecutor).
Or is that just wishful thinking?
IJ
You do know that the three points of a civil suit is 1) to get full disclosure on what happened behind the scenes--and maybe force someone to give up his tax returns; 2) to seek monetary damages; and, 3) to force a change in election laws so that it cannot happen again.
No one is going to jail in this suit directly, unless they incriminate themselves in their depositions, and then that will be forwarded to prosecutors.
Also, by filing a civil suit, Trump would not be able to fire anyone. Nor could he pardon anyone as the case goes forward.