Today's Must-Read: It's the Press, Stupid!

Rebecca Traister takes a hard look at the man -- and they are almost all me -- who will be framing the optics of the 2020 election, and it ain't pretty:

In past weeks, the curtain has officially been raised on the vast and diverse field of candidates for the Democratic nomination, many of them politicians who would not have been seen on a presidential debate stage — and never in these numbers — even a decade ago. Six of the 25 declared candidates are not men; six of them are not white; there is one openly gay man and one Jew who’s also a democratic socialist. During the first round of debates, several candidates made efforts to speak Spanish that, while performative, reflected an overdue acknowledgment that they were speaking to a broader swath of the country than the moderate white men in diners to whom so much Democratic messaging has been directed for decades. Beyond their representational expansion, many of the candidates are offering up compelling, progressive policy ideas: pushing the party into fights for single-payer health care, subsidized child care, free college, a Green New Deal, a stronger commitment to reproductive justice and a push for more humane immigration policies.

But we’re also getting our first real taste of the punditry that will frame this next year and a half, and so far, it is the opposite of fresh, diverse, or forward-thinking. Rather, the analysis coughed up by some of the nation’s loudest and most prominent talking heads sounds familiar and stale. The dispiriting truth is that many of those tasked with interpreting our politics are — in addition to being extremely freaked out by the race they’re covering — totally ill-equipped for the historic task ahead of them.

She names names. Read it all.

With thanks to commenter Gustav2 at Joe.My.God.

Today's Must-Read: Digby on the Khashoggi Murder

Pretty detailed, and pulls a lot of things together, particularly on the likelihood that Trump is helping with the cover-up:

Read the first paragraph of this report from Shane Harris in the Washington Post and think about it for a moment:

The Trump administration and the Saudi royal family are searching for a mutually agreeable explanation for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — one that will avoid implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is among the president’s closest foreign allies, according to analysts and officials in multiple countries.

I assume that is based on information from reliable sources. And what it says is truly shocking: The White House is conspiring with the Saudi government to cover up a murder.

Let's get one thing straight: Trump doesn't care about America or anything like it. He cares about covering his butt. Period.

And I just ran across this post from Tom Sullivan, who starts off agreeing with my last point:

First and foremost, Donald Trump looks out for Donald Trump. His only friends are those who increase his wealth, flatter his ego, or cover his backside. World condemnation of the Saudis over the suspected death and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi? Our sitting president views that through the lens of Trump. How does it hurt the Trump Organization? What other Gulf States hotel deals dance in his head? Haven't the very rich Saudis said nice things about him? Saudi Arabia has "been a great ally to me," Trump told Fox Business Network.

'Nuff said?

This Month's School Shooting

Like Digby, I have nothing to say, so I'm just going to borrow her post:

She also includes a comment from David Hogg:

Get ready for two weeks of media coverage of politicians acting like they give a shit when in reality they just want to boost their approval ratings before midterms.

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) May 18, 2018

Just recently saw a comment that we're twenty weeks into 2018 and there have been 22 mass shootings.

Welcome to Trump's America, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NRA.

Hide Your Irony Meter

or you're going to have to replace it:

Via press release from the Family Research Council:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today announced the appointment of Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) as its newest commissioner, for a two-year term. Mr. Perkins will remain FRC president during his time with USCIRF.

Perkins must have written that release himself -- it goes on to turn reality on its head with its glowing description of Perkins' advocacy on behalf of "religious minorities" (trans: Christians in majority-Muslim countries).

All in all, it's just payback to the evangelicals to keep them in the fold.

Today in Disgusting People (Update)

I have to admit to having almost no first-hand knowledge of Sean Hannity, since I don't watch either broadcast or cable TV, or listen to the radio. (I stopped listening to the radio years ago because they talk too much, and I find talking a distraction when I'm reading or doing something that needs musical accompaniment. I can watch a talk show, but I can't listen to one.)

At any rate, the take I have on Hannity is, as might be expected, from sources on the Internet, and considering the sources I usually check out, you might well imagine that my take is not positive. I think this confirms my judgment:

“When you look at this report and what it says, the major finding that the House Intel Committee have now ended their 14 month phase of this Russian investigation. There’s still a lot of other investigations to come. It confirms everything we have been telling you and it also confirms that the media and Democrats have been flat out lying to every American for over a year with their breathless hysterical reporting and they out of pretty much whole cloth created a Russian collusion conspiracy theory all designed to smear and delegitimize Donald Trump.” – Sean Hannity, speaking today on his SiriusXM show.

Gee, the House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign -- uh, let me clarify that: the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of collusion, so they've ended their investigation before questioning all the witnesses and examining all the documents.

That's all Hannity needs to go full-tilt conspiracy theorist. Well, not up to the level (down to the level?) of Alex Jones, but still. . . .

This is an order of magnitude beyond sycophancy.

Well, now they can go back to investigating Hillary's e-mails.

Update: Here's more background if you need it.

Tool du Jour (Updates)

In the wake of yesterday's school shooting in Florida (and it occurs to me that I could start a department on this blog titled "Massacre du Jour," but that would be a bit too ghoulish), Fox News' Steve Doocy asked Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-NRA) if it was appropriate to be talking about gun control:

“It’s not, only because people don’t know how this happened,” Rubio said. “[We don’t know] who this person is, what motivated them, how did they get a hold of the weapon that they used for this attack.”

. . .

“I think it’s important to know all of that before you jump to conclusions that there’s some law we could have passed that could have prevented it,” he continued. “There may be, but shouldn’t we at least know the facts?”

The facts that are necessary to know are: some wacko got his hands on an assault rifle, walked into a public high school and started shooting. Who the shooter is and his motivations are secondary; how he got the weapon is wide open: over the counter at a gun shop, at a gun fair, mail order -- there are a lot of options.

Via Joe.My.God. who adds this little tidbit:

Marco Rubio, hooker for the #NRA, took $3,298,405 in blood money from them in 2016. I'm sure there is a Proverb he can tweet that will make that all OK . . . #GunControlNow https://t.co/h2P7li2Glx

— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) February 15, 2018

And why doesn't the cry "Save the children!" resonate with Republicans when it's used for gun control the way it did when it was used against gay civil rights?

Sorry -- silly question. Mrs. Betty Bowers provided the answer. (And it looks like one of Jimmy Kimmel's writers has given us the answer for a lot more Republicans.)

I can't let this go without adding this to the mix:

Footnote: We can learn a lesson from Australia:

In April 1996, a 28-year-old man armed with semi-automatic rifles entered a cafe in the small Australian town of Port Arthur, shot and killed 35 people and injured 23 others. It was the worst mass shooting in Australian history.

The day after the massacre, the country’s prime minister, John Howard (a newly elected leader), started to put together the most sweeping gun control reforms ever contemplated by any Australian government.

The country passed the National Firearms Agreement, which banned automatic, semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. It also introduced a stricter system for licensing and owning guns. The agreement is considered one of the strictest gun laws in the world. . . .

It took just 14 days after the Port Arthur massacre for gun laws to be proposed and then passed by the Australian government.

In the decades before the Port Arthur killings, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia (defined by academics as the killing of five or more people, not including the shooter).

Since the 1996 gun reform, Australia has not had another mass shooting.

(Emphasis added.)

Australia has also seen steep declines in gun-related deaths overall. You think maybe there's a connection?

God-Botherers to the Fore (Update)

Two stories this morning seem to hang together. First, from NCRM, this article on a Washington Post op ed by Albert Mohler responding to criticisms of the so-called "Nashville Statement." It's a document rife with the trademark "Christian" characteristics of arrogance, smugness, self-absorption, and authoritarianism.

This got a laugh from me:

We signers know ourselves, like all humanity, to be broken by sin. We have no right to face the world from a claim of moral superiority. We know and confess that Christians have often failed to speak the truth in love.

I wonder why they never act like it. He's right about them having no claim to moral superiority: they have no idea what morality really is.

David Badash, in the NCRM article, takes that a little farther:

He also does not address why same-sex marriage, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are his targets, along with those who support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

Why not speak to divorce? Inequality? Immigration? Economic challenges?

Why not speak to the historic Hurricane Harvey, which Mohler's group was apparently unaware was ravaging Texas and Louisiana as they were releasing their statement attacking LGBT people.

"In releasing the Nashville Statement, we in fact are acting out of love and concern for people who are increasingly confused about what God has clarified in Holy Scripture," Mohler says.

In other words, he's doing what evangelical Christians have been doing for decades: calling LGBT people sinners while claiming their "truth," aka hate and condemnation, is love.

He makes a couple of good points: why weren't Mohler -- and Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon, and the other signers of this "statement", out helping people in Houston? (Can you imagine Tony Perkins ladling out stew in an emergency shelter? Neither can I.) Update: Speaking of Harvey, Joel Osteen just doesn't know when to shut up.

“The reason it may seem like God is not waking up is not because he’s ignoring you, not because he’s uninterested, it’s because he knows you can handle it,” he stated and added that Christians should “take it as a compliment” from God when their lives are impossibly difficult.

I'm sure those people who have lost everything take great comfort in that. (There's video at the link, if you can stand seven-plus minutes of Osteen's teeth.)

As for why they aren't addressing those other issues -- well, how can they make money off of that? I mean, it's not as easy to scare people with divorce as it is with men in the women's bathroom. And Trump has the immigration thing wrapped up.

Oh, and Dr. Mohler? When your idea of love starts with judgment and ends with condemnation, you've really missed the point.

And it seems that the left are not the only ones calling bullshit on the "Nashville Statement":

“Had white evangelicals leaders … withheld support for Mr. Trump after the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tapes, maybe their opposition to same-sex marriage would be viewed … as a principled, rather than a bigoted, position,” said Skye Jethani, a prominent Chicago-area pastor and author. The Nashville Statement met such criticism in part because white evangelicals’ broad voting support of Trump, at 81 percent, despite his moral violations, “squandered” their moral authority, he said.

My one problem with that comment is that they -- the signers -- are the only ones who believe they have any moral authority. (I mean, outside their flock of sheep -- and I don't think it's by chance that the Bible repeatedly refers to Christ's followers as "sheep.") Otherwise, he's right: their hypocrisy is dripping all over everything.

And as for Mohler's statement that they were called on the "clarify" God's teaching on human sexuality -- no. The "Nashville Statement," like the Manhattan Declaration, is a manifesto, and an instruction to political leaders. Enter Digby:

He is a violent, cretinous narcissist and his cabinet is filled with Goldman Sachs greedheads and government slashing zealots. His foreign policy is incoherent and national security is totally in the hands of generals. And then there are the theocrats who are getting every last thing they want from their beloved pussy grabbing, sexual predator.

Peter Montgomery surveys the success of the Religious Right under Trump:

Amid the stream of outrage about President Donald Trump that dominates my Facebook feed, one friend desperately sought a silver lining: “Well, at least we don’t have the theocrat Pence as President.” It reminded me that I, like some of my LGBTQ friends, thought during the Republican primary that we would prefer Trump to someone like Ted Cruz, whose unshakeable religious-right ideology and matching policy agenda was clear.

We were wrong. My Facebook friend is wrong. Not only is Trump a reckless and divisive president who shows contempt for anyone who crosses him and who has energized a white nationalist movement that could wreak havoc on American political and social culture for a long time to come—he’s also the best thing that’s ever happened to the religious right.

In case anyone is still wondering, the religious right is not about morality or virtue -- it is about power, which should be obvious to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Moral Majority and its successors.

Digby is right in line with my take:

But what's most important about this is the complete breakdown of any pretense that these "Values Voters" have any moral core or are in any way sincere in their beliefs. They are nothing more than a political faction looking for power and they are willing to use any means necessary to achieve it. Let's not ever be confused again or allow the media to use them as some kind of symbol of morality in our politics.

They are beyond hypocrites. They are simply frauds.

And cynical manipulators on top of it. As Digby puts it, this is enough to make me lose my lunch.

State of Emergency, As Republicans See It

For example, if the voters pass a ballot measure to create an independent government ethics commission, well, that's certainly a "state of emergency":

Just 10 weeks ago, South Dakota voters passed a slate of ethics reforms and campaign finance law overhauls by a slim majority. By the end of the day on Thursday, state Republican lawmakers will have canceled the whole package. . . .

If voters’ decision were allowed to stand, South Dakotans would have an independent ethics board with subpoena power. Given a pair of recent high-profile corruption scandals in which former public officials in South Dakota had bilked taxpayers for years and then killed themselves after investigators caught on, the state had reason to seek a watchdog with sharper teeth and a longer leash. . . .

Republicans lost that battle in November. Now they’re using extraordinary measures to override the voters.

The emergency package passed the House on Tuesday and is moving through a Senate committee on Wednesday, with a full floor vote in the upper chamber expected on Thursday. Once the GOP supermajorities finish up, state employees and lawmakers will be safe once again from independent investigations of public corruption in state government.

I don't really need to add anything, do I?

Via C&L, which has more background.

Can You Say "Brazen"?

This is really almost beyond belief:

Lawmakers in South Dakota are invoking emergency powers to overturn an anti-corruption law that was passed by a ballot measure during the 2016 election.
The South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act makes it illegal for lawmakers to receive more than a total of $100 annually from lobbyists in the form of “any compensation, reward, employment, gift, honorarium, beverage, meal, food, or other thing of value made or given directly or indirectly.”

The law, which was passed by a majority of voters in November, immediately incited panic among state officials and lawmakers. Some resigned from their posts while others cancelled meetings with any groups represented by lobbyists.

Lawmakers who are found guilty of violating the act face $1,000 in fines and up to one year in prison.

According to a statement from the advocacy group Represent South Dakota, lawmakers are now trying to use their “emergency powers to bypass normal check and balances, and repeal America’s first statement Anti-Corruption Act.”

I say "almost" because South Dakota is one of those states with a legislature dominated by Republicans. (I remember when the Republican party had real policy positions and a real interest in governing for the benefit of the country. That changed sometime in the late 1970s, maybe 1980s, when the "religious" right started to have major influence and the GOP became the party of taking power, by whatever means necessary.)

Any guesses on how long it's going to take Congress to latch on to this idea? Or Trump?

E-Mails!!1!: There Was No There There

Guess what the result of the FBI "reopening" the e-mails investigation a few days before the election:

The FBI told a federal judge that it needed to search a computer to resume its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server because agents had found correspondence on the device between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin — though they did not have any inkling what was being discussed, according to newly unsealed court documents.

The documents, made public Tuesday after a Los Angeles lawyer sued for their release, reinforce the impression that when the bureau revealed less than two weeks before the election that agents were again investigating Clinton, they had no new evidence of actual wrongdoing. The FBI’s revelation upended the presidential campaign, and to this day, Clinton and her supporters say it is at least partly to blame for her surprising loss to Donald Trump.

There's more at HuffPo:

The warrant connected to the FBI search that Hillary Clinton says cost her the election shouldn’t have been granted, legal experts who reviewed the document released on Tuesday told The Huffington Post.

FBI Director James Comey shook up the presidential race 11 days before the election by telling Congress the agency had discovered new evidence in its previously closed investigation into the email habits of Clinton, who was significantly ahead in the polls at the time.

When Comey made the announcement, the bureau did not have a warrant to search a laptop that agents believed might contain evidence of criminal activity. The FBI set out to rectify that two days later, on Oct. 30, when agents applied for a warrant to search the laptop, which was already in the FBI’s possession. The FBI had seized the computer as part of an investigation into former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The unsealed warrant “reveals Comey’s intrusion on the election was as utterly unjustified as we suspected at time,” Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said on Twitter Tuesday.

Read this whole article -- it gets worse. Much worse.

Via Dibgy, who notes:

I know that it's considered whining to be concerned about this but seriously, we should be concerned about this. The FBI is the most powerful domestic intelligence and police agency in the country. In the world, actually. It's really a big deal if they interfere in democratic elections. In fact, it's the mark of authoritarian states.

The problem with the warrant really is beside the point. They didn't seek the warrant until after Comey had dropped his bombshell. If they hadn't gotten the warrant it's unlikely it would have made any different. Comey had already tainted the election in the final stretch and it wouldn't have helped. Still, it's outrageous all on its own that this warrant application was "garbage" and that James Comey almost certainly had to have approved it.

If Comey simply "made a mistake" then he should be removed from office because that level of bad judgement means he is incapable of doing the job. If he did this in order to head off Giuliani's pro-Trump FBI agents leaking to the media, then he's lost control of his agency and he also needs to be removed. (And again, it would show monumental bad judgement since a notice coming from the FBI director would be far more damaging than any anonymous leaks to the press from rogue FBI agents. ) And then there's the fact that Comey may have taken the action he did for straight up political purposes. He was deputy counsel for the Republican Senate Whitewater Committee which leaked like a sieve and was outrageously partisan. He should be fired for that.

Whatever James Comey's motives, his actions and that of his agents who seemed to be working on behalf of Donald Trump should be investigated, just as the alleged Russian hacking must be investigated. (Indeed, his unwillingness to put his weight behind a bipartisan statement about the Russian hacking merits an investigation of its own.) This was a world-changing event.

I said at the time it was Comey playing politics. We got a good sense of where he was coming from in July, when he called a press conference to announce that the FBI had found nothing actionable in its investigation -- while taking the opportunity smear Clinton as much as he could. The maddening thing about this is that, in spite of flouting normal procedure, a direct advisory from the Attorney General, and quite possibly violating the Hatch Act, Comey will face no consequences.

And let me add that I think Digby's concerns about the role of the FBI in this whole debacle are fully justified, and only exacerbated by the news that Trump plans to maintain his own private security even after he's sworn in.

Welcome to post-democracy America.

Today's Must-Read: The GOP vs. Obama Redux

Well, if Clinton wins (which I think will happen but I'm very superstitious about making predictions like that -- and I can't believe Trump is polling as high as he is), unless we flip the Senate and make inroads in the House, it's going to be more of the Republicans trying to make Obama a one-term president From Charles P. Pierce:

Not that anybody will remember this little thing from Tiger Beat On The Potomac in March of 2017, when everybody will be writing about how Hillary Rodham Clinton's strident rhetoric during the campaign has crippled her ability to govern effectively, or to "reach across the aisle," or to "create bipartisan solutions." But I thought it ought to be noted for the record that the Republican commitment to institutional vandalism will not be going anywhere any time soon, and that there are Republicans—and a few Democrats and faux independents—who see an inert executive to be a political opportunity.

That means the bipartisan show of support she has now—thanks to Donald Trump and the "alt-right," conspiracy-driven campaign Clinton attacked Thursday in Reno—is likely to evaporate as soon as the race is called. If she wins the presidency, Clinton would likely enjoy the shortest honeymoon period of any incoming commander-in-chief in recent history, according to Washington strategists, confronting major roadblocks to enacting her ambitious agenda, as well as Republican attacks that have been muted courtesy of the GOP nominee. "It will be the defining fact of her presidency," Jonathan Cowan, president of the moderate think tank Third Way, said of Clinton's problem of entering office with a divided Congress. "It's unprecedented."

 Good Lord, not these people again. They represent nobody. There is no viable constituency for anything they represent. The Republicans are going to be bad enough, but all HRC is going to need is to be heckled from the Joe Lieberman Memorial Peanut Gallery, especially with Zombie Evan Bayh on the verge of reappearing in the Senate, after his sabbatical during which he helped save representative democracy by being a lobbyist.

I sort of disagree with Pierce about one thing: they do represent somebody, but it ain't us. If you want to find out who, just look up the financial disclosures from their election campaigns to find out who their big donors are.

This is, I think, one of the real indications of what the Republican party has become -- aside from the isolationism, jingoism, racism, etc., etc., it's the absolute refusal to govern the country unless they get their way. I'm convinced that it's one of the effects of incorporating the "Christian" right into their base: these are people who have a hammerlock on what's right (in their own minds) and they are diametrically opposed to everything this country is about. It wouldn't matter who was president, if he or she were a Democrat we'd get the same reaction from the GOP.

Today's Must-Read: "Trade Deals"

From Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo. The meat:

Something I read somewhere the other day highlighted that in a way that stuck with me. Essentially, these are deals written solely from the perspective of corporations. They are treaties of, by, and for corporations. The needs, concerns, and fate of the average citizen in the global economy are not even an afterthought. Politicians and business magnates sell the deals to voters simmering like frogs in increasingly weakened democracies as a kind of transnational trickle-down. In the long run, this deal will be great for you. Trust us. "You're gonna love it. Believe me."

He's got back-up, too. Basically, corporations and their henchmen are sitting at the negotiating table writing these treaties, with the acquiescence, if not active agreement, of our so-called representatives. One of the key factors is that they give the corporations the right to sue countries through a special court:

In one critique of the TPP, Johnson wrote:

Corporations get a special channel of their own for enforcement of rules written by their representatives at the negotiating table. Labor, environment and other stakeholders don’t get that in TPP. This is how TPP will increase corporate power over governments and working people.

In effect, these "trade deals" subordinate nations to corporations.

I might note that it is not only Republicans pushing for this. The Obama administration has been leading the charge.

Read the whole thing.

Stop Me If You've Heard This One

The election's going to be rigged:

Donald Trump on Monday night repeated his earlier assertion that the 2016 general election will be “rigged” against him.

As the Republican presidential nominee slipped in the first polls to be released after the Democratic National Convention, he took to questioning the integrity of the nation’s election system, first at an afternoon rally in Ohio and then during an interview with Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel.

“I’m telling you, Nov. 8, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged,” Mr. Trump said in the Fox News interview. “And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump warned supporters in Columbus, Ohio, that the deck may already be stacked against him for November.

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest,” Mr. Trump said then.

In Trump's world, everything's rigged.

My first reaction is that he's sure Clinton will mop the floor with him and he's setting up the "I wuz robbed!" scenario. And of course, it's none other than Roger Stone pushing this for all it's worth.

What it boils down to is that the GOP are not going to be able to rig the elections because their voter suppression laws are being slapped down by the courts.

Via Joe.My.God.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome

Now that Benghazi!!1! is dead and buried -- for the moment -- it's E-mails!!1!. I've been thinking a bit about the press reaction to this (among other things), and once again, Digby to the rescue. First, quoting Brien Beutler:

What made this episode unique is that the same media that expected Republicans to overreach played a critical role in increasing their expectations of a political windfall.

Republicans in Congress and their conservative media allies largely brought this upon themselves. They were the ones who made right-wing sop out of baseless speculation that Clinton might be indicted for violating a law nobody’s ever been convicted of violating.

But due to a strange brew of incentives that proved toxic—the competition for eyeballs, the lack of subject matter expertise, the industry standard of reportorial balance—the mainstream media did nothing to puncture this myth. To the contrary, it treated the threat of indictment as a permanent question mark hovering over Clinton’s campaign like a dark cloud. In a different media ecosystem, this wouldn’t have happened. A mix of common sense and truly basic research and reporting would have established a consensus that Republicans were trying to gin up intrigue and damaging innuendo, but that an indictment was extraordinarily unlikely. Instead, the remote odds of one came to be seen as something like a 50-50 proposition, to the point where even professional Democrats began to worry Clinton might be charged with a felony and prosecuted.

I don't know that this is particularly unique. The media, for lack of a better term, ceased to practice journalism a long time ago, with a few exceptions -- most of them on Comedy Central. We're seeing the same kind of bullshit mantras repeated again in the wake of the Dallas shooting, and we've seen it time and time again in the aftermath of just about every high-profile event over the past couple of decades. The idea of any news anchor or interviewer holding anyone's feet to the fire over obvious distortions, or even challenging their bullshit, is simply not in the mix.

Digby's summation is, I think, pretty much on the mark:

I would just add that liberal journalists are also subject to a herd mentality and seem to find themselves searching for reasons to reassure the public that they aren't political hacks so they add to the atmosphere by being heavily critical on the "optics, judgment and narrative" aspects of these scandals which leads to a different kind of distortion. These dynamics play into each other creating the sort of febrile environment that characterizes these passion plays.

This is what leads to a sort of political establishment consensus that "something is terribly wrong" that the rest of the country finds confusingly out of touch.

I would just add that what's "terribly wrong" is the fact that the political establishment is so completely out of touch. It's at the point where Washington is damned near a closed system, and entropy is taking its toll. (Note that one reason the Republicans -- and even a few Democrats, although they tend to be quiet about it -- hate the Clintons so much is that they were "outsiders" -- they weren't part of the Village.)

Maybe it would help if the news departments were not part of the entertainment division.

The Clinton E-Mail Scandal, Liberal Redneck Style (Update)

This sort of sums up my feelings about the whole "scandal":

Footnote: Jason Chaffetz (R-Spanish Inquisition) has already called on FBI Director James Comey to testify on the investigation; any bets on whether Loretta Lynch is next?

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Wednesday said the Justice Department has decided not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton or her aides and will close the investigation into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. . . .

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State,” Lynch said. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Do read the whole article, but keep in mind that it's Politico, not the most left-friendly site on the Internet. And as for Comey's press conference, keep in mind also that he is a Republican, appointed by George W. Bush, and is no friend to the Clintons. Given that, I'm not surprised that he took the opportunity to slam Hillary Clinton as much as he could, but I find it illuminating that he couldn't find anything to hang a prosecution on. There's a lot of "may have beens" and "possiblys" in his statements. Take them for what they're worth, which in my book is simply nothing.

Update: Here's a good dissection of Comey's press conference. Pretty much bears out my take.

None of this would have even made it into a court of law, or even a halfway-decent newspaper, but because Comey got to stand there and testify unilaterally against Hillary Clinton for 15 minutes, no one gets to make Comey look like a fool for contradicting himself, and for engaging in the sort of rank speculation that courts of law are designed to weed out, and which competent editors relegate to spaces like Alex Jones‘ Infowars.

You can bet Comey will be handled with kid gloves when he testifies before whatever spin-off of the Witch-Hunt Committee the teabaggers come up with.

Did I Say E-Mails? (Updated)

Well, I called it: to no one's real surprise, the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server while Secretary of State has turned up exactly nothing (except some bad judgment, same as Colin Powell, who also had a private e-mail server). And to no one's further surprise, the right is up in arms. Cue the House Witch-Hunt Committee:

"While I respect the professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation," House Speaker Paul Ryan, Trump's most prominent political supporter, said in a statement.

"No one should be above the law."

There's a real simple explanation, Mr. Speaker: the investigation found no evidence of criminal intent, nor did Clinton break any laws. Therefore, no criminal charges. See how that works?

And of course, Twitter-Wizard Donald The Hairpiece knows what's afoot:

 

Via Digby, who also notes:

The prevailing GOP theme is that there was some kind of corrupt deal between Obama, Clinton, Lynch and James Comey that kept her from an indictment. The prevailing coverage from the press is that because Comey took the unprecedented step of holding a press conference to lay out evidence in a case for which he will not recommend a prosecution, it means that the "optics" are so bad that "the narrative" is that she is in real trouble even though she is not legally liable and many other government officials have used exactly the same practices.

I hear Trey Gowdy is looking for something to do.

Update: John Cole has some interesting background on the whole "why" of the private server:

Regardless, the idea that HRC used her own server to avoid FOIA requests is not the case. The reason she did it is posted proudly on the Judicial Watch server:

Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

There's more. Read the whole thing.

Is Anyone Surprized?

People were actually crowing about the Senate Republicans agreeing to hold a vote on gun control measures after the Democrats staged a fifteen-hour filibuster. Guess what happened:

The US Senate failed to advance new restrictions aimed at curtailing gun violence on Monday, as lawmakers voted down four separate measures just one week after a terrorist attack in Orlando marked the deadliest mass shooting in the nation’s history.

Democrats and Republicans had put forth competing amendments to both strengthen background checks and prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms. But all four bills fell short of the 60 votes needed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate, in a near replica of a vote held in December when a pair of shooters killed 14 people and wounded 22 more in San Bernardino, California.

The series of votes on Monday evening came in the aftermath of 12 June massacre at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida, which left 49 people dead and another 53 injured. Senate Democrats had secured the votes following a 15-hour filibuster last week demanding action against gun violence, a politically vexing issue that has yet to produce any major legislative breakthroughs in more than two decades.

It's "politically vexing" because the NRA owns enough senators and congressmen to make it that way.

(And a sidebar: Republican control of Congress has been a disaster for this country. Sixty votes to do anything in the Senate? And you wonder why nothing gets done?)

And from the "I'm not interested in staying in the Senate" Senate candidate from Florida:

Nelson’s Florida colleague, Marco Rubio, voted for the Republican amendments while opposing those offered by Democrats. Rubio issued a lengthy statement explaining his vote, in which the former Republican presidential candidate emphasized the need to refocus on the threat posed by homegrown extremism and the broader war on terror after the Orlando attack.

“We can’t say for sure if anything in our laws would have stopped this maniac from carrying out some form of attack, but I know that the proposals I supported today would specifically fill gaps that are evident after this attack and protect people who may one day find themselves needing firearms to protect themselves,” Rubio said.

Bullpucky. Hey, Marco, why don't you offer prayers for the victims -- that would be just as effective. And of course, it's all about terrorism, because the shooter (whose name is not to be mentioned) was Muslim. That's the standard Republican/NRA dodge: it's not about guns, it's about radical Islam. No, it's really about how much bullshit you can shovel down people's throats before they start choking on it.

A couple of points: this was quite obviously a hate crime: those targeted were at a gay club on Latino night.

The Orlando killing is uniquely at the intersection of gun violence, anti-gay violence and anti-immigrant violence (it was Latin night at the club, and 90% of the victims were Hispanic).

Hate crimes are, by definition, a form of terrorism: they are intended not to target an individual, but a group.

And as the FBI releases more information, it's apparent that the shooter was not affiliated with ISIS and received no support from them. Yes, of course they claimed credit. They always do. That's how they make themselves seem powerful. This was one really mixed-up man who had a lot of issues, a history of violence, and was basically a walking time bomb.

It starts to look more and more as though the only way to get this country back on track is to boot the teabaggers and their fellow-travelers out of office, across the board. That's going to take a while, since they have so many voters convinced that getting screwed is good for them.

Gaius Publius, at Hullabaloo, links to this piece by Joe Sudbay that deserves a read:

So, as we consider what to do moving forward in the wake of the worst shooting in American history, here’s a key thing to know: Al Gore didn’t lose because of the NRA. He lost because he ran from the gun issue instead of owning his record. The NRA capitalized on that thinking and for that past 15 years has run amok. That group and the politicians who kneel as the gun lobby’s altar give us a nation where 49 people can be mowed down. But, we all have a part in it for letting our politicians be controlled by them.

Most people in this country -- even gun owners -- favor regulation of guns, especially assault weapons. But then, it's been a while since Congress listened to the people.

Politico Nails It

I'm sure you've heard about the Senate Democrats finally growing a pair and filibustering all activity in the Senate until gun control amendments were brought to a vote. Well, the Turtle caved, and they're getting their vote. For what it's worth. Here's the headline from Politico:

 

Via Box Turtle Bulletin, where Jim Burroway thinks it's worthy of The Onion.

This Sounds Familiar

It's called "ruling," not "governing":

Speaker Ryan on Wednesday behind closed doors told Republican House members he will restrict the amendment process, effectively thwarting one of the few avenues Democrats have to advance their legislation, given the vast majority of the House is Republican, and bipartisanship is rare in today's toxic environment.

Ryan "is cracking down on Democrats' ability to win floor votes on hotly contested issues such as LGBT rights," the Associated Press reports late Wednesday morning. "The move means Ryan is reneging on a promise to protect the rights of lawmakers to take on a wide range of issue when the House debates annual spending bills."

"Hotly contested issues" -- read, "Issues on which the GOP is completely out of step with the rest of the country."

This, of course, is directly opposed to the promise he made when assuming the gavel to protect members' right to submit and advance bills. I guess he didn't think any Democrats would exercise that right.

This, I think, says it all:

Politico adds that an unnamed House aide "said Ryan is hearing that members 'want the Rules Committee to make sure we can govern as a majority and not allow Democrats to use the amendment process to take down the bills and derail the House’s work. . . ."

"Govern as a majority" -- don't they call that "one-party rule"? And isn't that the way it used to work in places like the U.S.S.R.?

More on this from TPM -- it looks like no one is happy:

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) told the Hill newspaper that Ryan's hand was forced.

“I think it was something he probably preferred not to do, but he felt like he had to do,” Cole said. “That’s his responsibility as Speaker. You have to make some tough decisions.

Not everyone was convinced.

“Our leadership is using this as an excuse to close down the process,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told the Hill.

Democrats took their own shot at Ryan for the decision.

“It has long been clear that regular order is not as important to Republicans as protecting their special interest agenda. Republicans are clearly afraid of the will of the House when it comes to protecting LGBT Americans or standing up for hard-working families," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

Well, back to gridlock.

Today's Must-Read

From Digby again, and it's pretty scary:

Yesterday, People for the American Way released a report showing that rather than leaving worldly politics behind in reaction to the rise of the boorish and profane Donald Trump, as many people have been predicting, the religious right is gathering their forces for more assaults on the state houses around the country in pursuit of what they have duplicitously labeled "religious liberty" (when it is, in fact, a form of religious oppression.) Whatever disappointments they may be experiencing in national politics, their zeal to force people who have different (or no) religious beliefs to conform to theirs continues apace.

These people do not appear to have gotten the memo that once marriage equality was affirmed by the Supreme Court the issue was settled. In fact, that ruling sparked a coordinated effort among conservative religious organizations to  roll back gay rights wherever they can. The report says that in 2016 over 100 anti- LGBT equality bills have already been introduced in statehouses around the country. And there is every indication that these activities are picking up speed.

I've been saying since, oh, forever, that the religious right is not going to give up. They're still chipping away at Roe v. Wade two generations later, and although they've failed to make an equivalence between abortion and gay rights, they're not going to change their strategy -- and it's a long-term strategy. They are, after all, the beneficiaries of Eternal Truth™ as revealed by The One True God™ -- or the latest interpreters thereof.

Read the whole thing -- and pay attention to who's running for your state legislature.