Sunday School 2/24/19

Just one classroom today, CNN's State of the Union, primarily because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on, and I wanted to hear what he had to say about all of the foreign policy stuff going on, including the president's upcoming visit with Kim Jong Un and what's going on in Venezuela. 

That's where the conversation started.

Jake Tapper asked Pompeo what he meant by his statement that

The US will take action against those who oppose peaceful restoration of democracy in Venezuela.

Pompeo said that our policy is clear, that we support the people there and that we'll continue to do so, but as to specific actions, he said that would be addressed by the Lima Group this week, and,

There's more sanctions to be had. There's more humanitarian assistance, I think, that we can provide. I think we will find other ways to make sure that food gets to the people who need it... We will ultimately, I believe and the Venezuelan people will, ultimately, I believe, hold accountable those who have done so much harm to the fundamental basic rights of the people of Venezuela.

Tapper mentioned some of what the skeptics are saying,  including the suggestion that we are using humanitarian aid as a political tool. Pompeo said we where there are the request of the 'legitimate president' of the country, who asked for our help and helping was "our objective yesterday. It's our objective today. It will be our objective tomorrow as well." 

When Tapper said it seemed Maduro was not going anywhere, he was holding on to power and that it seemed the military was holding with him, Pompeo had a personal response to that. 

It always seems that way, until the day it doesn't. I remember when I was a young soldier patrolling the then East German border. No one predicted on that day in 1989 that that wall would come crumbling down. Predictions are difficult... I am confident that the Venezuelan people will ensure that Maduro's days are numbered. 

TGIF 8/10/18

How was your week, pretty calm?

I think some folks might have wished that were the case.  Take Omarosa. You remember her, right? The thrice-fired Apprentice, who was also fired by the Trump Administration and was booted from Big Brother, another pseudo-reality TV show, is making the media rounds in advance of her latest book, Unhinged: An Insider Account of the Trump White House.

Why is she having a bad week? Well, for starters, her interviews appear to contradict her book - which is a no-no in the business - and do so on her big bombshell, that there are tapes of then Celebrity Blowhard Donald Trump using the n-word.  And she may have heard the tapes, even though she was only told that he used the n-word, she never heard him actually say it. Or, maybe she did or didn't hear anything at all, who knows.

Actually, what might be more damaging than her missteps on the book tour are the authors she's lumped with in the "people who bought this book also bought" list. Omarosa is in fine company (um, yeah, that's what it is) - see for yourself:

• Jeanine Pirro: Liars, Leakers and Liberals, The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy
• Gregg Jarrett: The Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump
• Newt Gingrich: Trump's America, The Truth about Our Nation's Greatest Comeback
• Jerome B. Corsi: Killing the Deep State, The Fight to Save president Trump

Whether she's telling the truth either in the interviews or in the book, and even if she's bunched in with an "interesting" group of authors, she still probably had a better week than this guy, Buffalo-area Republican Congressman Chris Collins. 

Collins, you have likely heard, has been charged with insider trading; the charges stem from him being on the board of an Australian pharma company, and him allegedly using information he learned about the failure of one of the company's drugs, which he then allegedly shared with his son (perhaps as he attended a White House gathering, if the timeline is correct), and his son allegedly shared the information with his soon-to-be father-in-law. Collins son and his FIL sold shares of stock in advance of the public announcement of the bad news, and that is bad news for the Congressman. 

Everyone's pleaded not guilty, and Collins plans on staying on the ballot, at least he does for now. This whole thing would be much less interesting, and we'd be hearing much less about it, if Collins hadn't been the first member of Congress to jump on the Trump bandwagon. And it would be much less interesting if, around the time he allegedly called his son to warn him, there was some way he could have protected his daughter, too - because, according to this report, she allegedly lost over a million bucks on her shares in the pharma company.

And speaking of alleged things, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went to Russia; he had a letter with him that he passed to Putin's people. According to Paul, the letter was from the Trump Administration and contained stuff about important things; in fact, Paul suggested that Trump send the letter. Except that the White House is saying the letter was meant to introduce Paul to Putin, and that's why the Senator wanted the letter. And the contents? Those were Rand Paul's topics of interest, not the presidents. After all, he's allegedly been talking to Putin regularly since the #HELLinHELSINKI2018 summit last month.

Finally, an update on this week's Wondering on Wednesday post, which included a reference to Kris Kobach, the Trump-loving election fraud conspiracy theorist and Kansas Secretary of State who's locked in a tight gubernatorial primary race with the state's current Governor. Kobach had said that he would not recuse himself, should a recount be requested. Kobach has changed his mind since Wednesday, as his already thin lead was cut in half and concerns about discrepancies and about Kobach's guidance to county election officials has been called into question. He has transferred his oversight activities to his top aide. 

TGIF, everyone. 

TGIF 7/20/18

I know the weeks are only seven days long, but sometimes they seem way longer, don't they?

Like this one.  "Take this week - please!"

I mean, we had

• #HELLinHELSINKI2018 and then we had the 
• #ligthsoff thing at the meeting when the president tried to explain himself and then we had the 
• #whatthesniff reaction with the would/wouldn't thing, and then we had the
• #maybemaybenot part about letting Putin interrogate a former ambassador and then we had
• #WWIIIwithlovefromMontenegro and then we had
• #caughtoffguard at the security summit with the announcement that we might be
• #Putinonairs in the fall if the Russian president decides to come here, and of course that assumes
• #nocollusiondoesntmeannoindictment but we'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

What else happened this week?

Sean Spicer's back in the news. He's not hiding in the bushes, not this time: he's out with his book, The Briefing: Politics, The Press, and The President. The book includes passages like this one:

I don't think we will ever again see a candidate like Donald Trump. His high-wire act is one that few could ever follow. He is a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow. 

Uh... I guess this next part explains the whole unicorn upon a unicorn thing:

His verbal bluntness involves risks that few candidates would dare take. His ability to pivot from a seemingly career-ending moment to a furious assault on his opponents is a talent few politicians can muster.

That last part is true, even if the whole unicorn thing is sort of like a Sean Spicer press conference.

TGIF, folks.

Trump in Transition (v19)

Hanging out on the porch, listening to the birds, and letting my mind wander to the latest 'transition' by the president.

Trump has hired a NY big money loudmouth, Anthony Scaramucci, to be his new director of communications.Here's some of what we learned about "the Mooch" in  The Atlantic:

The Wall Street financier and former Obama donor once called then-candidate Trump “a hack politician,” a big-mouthed “bully,” and “an inherited money dude from Queens County” and backed two other Republican presidential contenders, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, before embracing Trump as the party’s nominee.

And, we're told, this son of a construction worker has a background very similar to Trump's:

Like Trump, he parlayed business success into celebrity by writing books, appearing on cable news, and even hosting his own financial show. He and the president also share a lack of ideological rigidity, which meshes with the business-first ethos of the Wall Street veterans in the White House while clashing with GOP stalwarts like Priebus and Sean Spicer, the press secretary who resigned as a result of Scaramucci’s hiring.

Congratulations to Spicer on finally getting out. Why it took getting a new boss for him to rise to the occasion is between him, the bushes and his Easter Bunny but we all have our own last straw, and at least it's over now. He's safe, and we can move on.

Speaking of moving on, what do you say when you accidentally bump into someone? Pardon me is going to be my go-to phrase.

According to this Washington Post article,

Some of president Trump's lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's Russia investigation, building a  case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president's authority to grand pardons, according to people familiar with the effort. 

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump's lawyers have been discussing the president's pardoning powers among themselves. 

#Whatthesniff  is going on? Maybe he's bored from tweeting and beating the Fox News - CNN - MSNBC buttons to death on his TV remote?

The irony of the most interest-conflicted president, first family, and administration in living memory expressing concern over anyone else's potential conflicts of interest is beyond laughable, isn't it? And,
lest they forget, President Clinton was impeached because of activities related to a semen stain on a blue dress worn by someone other than his wife, not for activities associated with a land deal called Whitewater.

These investigations go where they will and the chips fall where they may - and the president messes with that at his peril (at least in normal times...). 

Finally, let's turn to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who is in need of a transition himself. Sessions, you'll recall, recused himself from Russia - Trump investigations or anything else related to the Trump campaign, to remove any potential issues with impartiality.

This week Trump, in a rambling conver(...oh, pardon me, I mean in an interview) with the New York Times, said this about whether the AG had given him a heads up about the recusal:

Zero. Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have -- which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself?  If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said "Thanks Jeff, but I can't, you know, I'm not going to take you." It's extremely unfair, and that's a mild word, to the president. So he recuses himself then I end up with a second man, who's a deputy... 

Does Trump even know what recusal means, or what the AG does? And, until the potential ethical issues stemming from campaign-related activities were exposed, from what could Sessions have recused himself?

I suppose, in his interview for the job, he could have said to Trump,

Listen, you and I both know you ran a shady campaign; we both know your family and advisers, including me, acted like morons and may have broken some laws when we kissed up to Russia with your full knowledge and approval. That's gonna hurt when it all comes out, and we both know it will.  When it does I'll need to step back to protect you. Any issues with that? 

Trump, who hired Mike Flynn knowing his shady background, wouldn't have cared, I'm sure. But Sessions didn't do that, and he paid the price this week. He insists he will continue to serve as our Attorney General.

I have the honor as serving as attorney general, it's something that goes beyond any thought I would have ever had for myself. We love this job, we love this department and I plan to continue to do so as long as that is appropriate.  

Yeah --  it's no longer "appropriate" to stay on. Take a cue from your recusal statement, and bow out before it gets any worse.

During the course of the last several weeks, I have heard that the president is miffed at and confused by my trying to be ethical while helping promote his law enforcement agenda. Most recently, in an interview with the New York Times, he laid bare his distaste for my taking an ethical stand to protect his administration.

Having concluded that neither I nor anyone else has any idea what the president will do or say next, and given his obvious lack of regard for ethics in general, I have decided to resign from my position as attorney general.

This announcement should be interpreted as confirmation that I would rather be an unemployed ethical person than an appointee of this president.  

And then, he and Sean Spicer can go have a beer.  

Fairly Unbelievable

"Fairly unbelievable" is how White House press secretary and Melissa McCarthy impersonator Sean Spicer described how the president would describe his relationship with Angela Merkel. Honest.

Q. Sean, where do you see the states of the US-German relationship right now? And how important is that relationship to the president and the American public?

A. I think the relationship that the president has had with Merkel he would describe as fairly unbelievable. They get along very well. He has a lot of respect for her. They continue to grow the bond that they had during their talks in the G7. 

Cool, huh?

Fairly unbelievable could also be used to describe a whole lot of other stuff in the news, coming from or about this administration.

For example, could the Department of Homeland Security be making public information on  domestic violence victims and children who have been trafficked? Fairly unbelievable, I know, but it seems to be true.  DHS, you recall, created the Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement (VOICE) office,  at the president's request and to further his efforts at casting illegal immigrants as the rapists, murderers and drug dealers he told us about as a candidate. To go along with VOICE, there was a database, called DHS-VINE (Victim Information and Notification Exchange) where people can track the cases of the bad hombres who are committing crimes against white Americans, above and beyond being in the country illegally.

Unfortunately, the database includes the names, addresses and other information of illegal immigrants who happen to be crime victims themselves, including domestic violence and trafficking victims - which means that it will allow their abusers to keep tabs on them, when they were released, and so on.

"We're concerned that DHS does not seem to be seriously considering the concerns of victims of crime," says Archi Pyati, chief of policy for the Tahirih Justice Center. The inclusion of survivors' information, she says, is a violation of federal law protecting the information of people applying for special visas or other protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking.  

DHS says it will remove the information, although pressure will be kept on them to make sure it happens.

Or, this example. Could it be possible that about half of president Trump's Twitter followers are fake? Fairly unbelievable, I know, but it appears to be true. There's this software called Twitter Audit, which allows an analysis of any Twitter user's followers to determine if they're real users (people who actually have profiles, and who tweet) or bots or otherwise added to pad the all-important bottom line. You can buy those, if you're so vain.  Anyway, Trump's analysis shows he has about 51% fake followers. According to this article,

This isn't the first time someone has pointed out that a good portion of Trump's Twitter following is fake, but what's interesting is that its fakeness seems to be increasing. In January, journalist Yashar Ali ran an audit on Trump's Twitter account and found that 68% of his then 20 million followers were real. Now he's at 30 million followers, but only 51% are real, which means of 10 million followers Trump has gained since January, about 8.3 million are fake. 

The article also notes that President Obama has both more followers in total than Trump (89 million to 30 million) and a much higher percentage of real ones (79% to 51%). Nothing unbelievable about that...

Or, how about this one? Could Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross really be as clueless as he sounded, talking about the reaction in Saudi Arabia when Trump was there?  Watch the video, or take a look below at a transcript of his interview with Becky Quick:

Ross: There's no question that they're liberalizing their society. And I think the other thing that was fascinating to me: There was not a single hint of a protester anywhere there during the whole time we were there. Not one guy with a bad placard. Instead...

Fairly unbelievable?  You betcha!  Ross doubled down:

Quick: But Secretary Ross, that may be not necessarily because they don't have those feelings there, but because they control people and don't allow them to come and express their feelings quite the same as we do here.

Ross: In theory, that could be true, but boy there was certainly no sign of it. There was not a single effort at any incursion. There wasn't anything. The mood was a genuinely good mood. And at the end of the trip, as I was getting back on the plane, the security guards from the Saudi side who'd been helping us over the weekend all wanted to pose for a big photo op, And then they gave me two gigantic bushels of dates as a present, as a think you for the trip that we had had. That was a pretty from the heart very genuine gesture and it really touched me.  

In theory? Seriously? Is he Secretary of Commerce, or Secretary of Comedy?

And finally, I leave you with these tweets, which nicely summarize our fairly unbelievable president.
Read the first series (they're in reverse sequence) to understand Trump's opinion on unnamed sources used in articles about him or his administration.

And then, of course, this retweet by the president two days later, speaks for itself.

Wondering on Wednesday (v88)

Time photo

Where do I even begin tonight? Let's see....

I wonder what I'd do if one day I woke up and was as intellectually uninterested in what's happening
in my country as seemingly everyone in the Trump administration thinks I am already? Or wants me to be when I grow up, as if I had been introduced to the Men in Black or something?

For example, I know they want me to believe that the reason Trump fired FBI Director James Comey was because he mishandled the Clinton email investigation. And by mishandling, of course, the Administration means that Comey did not run around the storied halls of the Justice Department chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!" the way he was supposed to.  But does ANYONE really believe that's why Comey was relieved of duty?

And do you wonder how much longer we will be listening to Sean I'm Hiding in the Bushes if You Need Me Spicer, when we have the delightful Sarah Huckabee Sanders (yes that Huckabee, no, not that Sanders)  who's brave enough to face the cameras?

And I wonder, is there anyone who still believes that Trump puts anything other than his own narcissistic interests first? Did you see him greatly appreciate Comey in his termination letter?  Because in case you were wondering, nothing more important than that!

Remember the time when Trump said we maybe needed to do something about the First Amendment? You know, change the laws to make it easier to sue media companies because right now our press is allowed to say anything they want? And when he said he was going to sue the NY Times (they said bring it on), but never did?  I wonder if they're working on accomplishing the same thing in a slightly different way? For example, supporting the arrest of reporters?

That's right. A reporter was asking/yelling/aggressively questioning Price about the WeDon'tCare Act as Price and (Where in the World is) Kellyanne Conway were walking down a hallway, and it was alleged in the police report  that the reporter was aggressively breaching the Secret Service agents, causing a disturbance by yelling questions, and worthy of being held on $5,000 bond. Now, it was a state law under which the guy was charged, but I wonder, had Price (or Conway, for that matter) had been the better man, would he have told the police that the reporter didn't really need to be arrested?

And I wonder if we're really supposed to believe that these actions - firing Comey, and standing by as a reporter is arrested - are not intended to have a chilling effect on others? The Administration says that the multiple Russia investigations will continue and hopefully be resolved quickly so they can move on to doing the country's business. That in and of itself sets the tone that speed is more important than accuracy, as it were, and since the man who was leading the investigations has been fired, well... you get the picture. I hope there's no impact, but there's no guarantee.

Same with the reporter. Waving a microphone and yelling to get the attention of Administration officials is an arrestable offence in West Virginia?  Who know how many reporters will back off as result of this arrest?   I hope none, but there's no guarantee on that, either.

And finally, I wonder, if my mind was erased by Smith and Jones, would I even realize?

Oh Battlefield, My Battlefield

Stephen Crowley/NY Times photo

As you may have heard, president Trump has just donated his first three months' salary to the National Parks Service (NPS).

The picture in the article linked above shows two hands holding a check, but no faces. One hand is in what is clearly an NPS uniform.

In the interest of advancing the journalistic profession, here's the part of the picture that shows the face of Tyrone Brandyburg, who at the time the picture was taken, was the Superintendent at West Virginia's Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. Brandyburg looks about as excited as I would have been to be at this particularly galling photo op.

On the campaign trail, Trump had promised to donate his salary to charity. I'm not immediately sure whether that's what he thought he just did, but I am certain he has dashed the hopes of the press, who were advised by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer that they would be the ones to choose the charity, and I'm sure they would have relished the chance to do good with $78,333.32.

Why characterize this as a particularly galling photo op? Well for starters, Trump has proposed cutting the NPS budget by nearly 12% this fiscal year in his America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.

That's about $1.5B, in case you were wondering, so his piddly donation, which he wants to be used to help maintain and improve our historic battlefields, seems to be an insult of $1,421,666.68 proportions. Not only did he choose a governmental agency whose funding he plans on decimating, he opted to support the battlefields, which are already some $229M behind in maintenance.

Nonetheless, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke seemed suitably impressed.

As a veteran myself, I want to say I am thrilled at the president's decision to donate the check he did today. We're excited about that opportunity.  Want some Kool-Aid?

OK, he didn't really ask if anyone wanted some Kool-Aid.

He'll need it for himself, as he will have to figure out how to allocate the bulk of his limited budget dollars to rerouting traffic patterns and reconfiguring tourist amenities to accommodate all of the planned Diverse American Mining Needs (DAMN) and Collaborative Resource Acquisition Parcels (CRAP) that will soon populate our national parks and historic sites.

It's not known at this time whether the battlefields the president newly holds dear will come out on the other side of these upcoming NPS changes in any way resembling their current state. We do know, though, that 'history' is just another word for Stuff We Interpret Loosely, Lady (SWILL), so there's at least some possibility that Superintendent Brandyburg may not even recognize Harpers Ferry when all is said and done - assuming he's still employed, that is. After that picture gets widely circulated, his long-term employment may not be guaranteed.

That said, new signs have already been ordered to place around all of the historical battlefields, to commemorate the donation and to help advance the tourist experience and the mission of the Park Service.

The National Park Service (NPS) preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The National Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.

I'm sure everything will become clear once the signed are all installed. I can't reveal my sources, but I managed to get my hands on the template that was sent to the manufacturer.

They're going to look just great, wouldn't you agree? With a lighted flagpole?  Can't wait.

And the Winner is...The Deficit

Some politicians have said that the nonpartisan congressional Budget Office and their numbers a bunch of hooey, that the numbers can't be trusted, that these folks are always wrong. First, there’s Sean Spicer.

If you're looking at the CBO for accuracy, you're looking at the wrong place. Look at what the CBO's record is on Obamacare. It's vastly off. They're way off in terms of the millions.  

And then there’s  HHS Secretary Tom Price:

We believe that the plan that we're putting in place will ensure more individuals than are currently ensured SO we think that the CBO simply has it wrong. It's just not believable, is what we would suggest.  

Unless of course they like the numbers, as Speaker Paul Ryan seems to, in which case the CBO folks are rocket scientists who know this stuff (whatever this stuff is) like the back of their hand.

This report confirms that the American Health Care Act will lower premiums and improve access to quality, affordable care. CBO also finds that this legislation will provide massive tax relief, dramatically reduce the deficit, and make the most fundamental entitlement reform in more than a generation...

So, rather than listening to them, let's just read what  the report says: (emphasis added)

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period. That total consists of $323 billion in on-budget savings and $13 billion in off-budget savings. Outlays would be reduced by $1.2 trillion over the period, and revenues would be reduced by $0.9 trillion.

The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid and from the elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) subsidies for nongroup health insurance. The largest costs would come from repealing many of the changes the ACA made to the Internal Revenue Code—including an increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for high-income taxpayers, a surtax on those taxpayers’ net investment income, and annual fees imposed on health insurers—and from the establishment of a new tax credit for health insurance.

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law. Most of that increase would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate. Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties, and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.

Later, following additional changes to subsidies for insurance purchased in the nongroup market and to the Medicaid program, the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026. The reductions in insurance coverage between 2018 and 2026 would stem in large part from changes in Medicaid enrollment—because some states would discontinue their expansion of eligibility, some states that would have expanded eligibility in the future would choose not to do so, and per-enrollee spending in the program would be capped.

In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

The report further notes the following “uncertainty surrounding the estimates” saying that CBO and JCT considered the potential responses of many parties that would be affected by the legislation, including these:

• Federal agencies—which would need to implement major changes in the regulation of the health care system and administration of new subsidy structures and eligibility verification systems in a short time frame;
• States—which would need to decide how to use Patient and State Stability Fund grants, whether to pass new laws affecting the nongroup market, how to respond to the reduction in the federal matching rate for certain Medicaid enrollees, how to respond to constraints from the cap on Medicaid payments, and how to provide information to the federal government about insurers and enrollees;
• Insurers—who would need to decide about the extent of their participation in the insurance market and what types of plans to sell in the face of different market rules and federal subsidies; 
• Employers—who would need to decide whether to offer insurance given the different federal subsidies and insurance products available to their employees;
• Individuals—who would make decisions about health insurance in the context of different premiums, subsidies, and penalties than those under current law; and
• Doctors and hospitals—who would need to negotiate contracts with insurers in a new regulatory environment. 

Each of those responses is difficult to predict. Moreover, the responses would depend upon how the provisions in the legislation were implemented, such as whether advance payments of the new tax credits were made reliably. And flaws in the determination of eligibility, for instance, could keep subsidies from people who were eligible or provide them to people who were not.

So, in the end, all things being equal, the deficit goes down by $337B over ten years, so the plan is a winner. In the process, the big government mandate is lifted; taxes go down; spending goes down; and if in the process a few million more people lose their health insurance, that's a small price to pay for a Republican lawmaker.

We'll see what happens once people have a chance to read the report and see how they think they can sell it to their constituents, particularly in the Senate where there has been, at least so far, less love for the plan. 

No, It's Not a Double Standard

White House Communications Director and Press Secretary Sean Spicer frequently gets himself all entwangled fighting off the press in the tiny White House briefing room. Like he did the other day, when speaking to comments made by the Trump SCOTUS nominee.

Neil Gorsuch, in a conversation with Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, said that "any criticism about a judge's integrity and independence" were "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
The comments were conveyed as being in reference to statements made by Trump regarding the "so-called judge" (that would be James Robart) who issued the temporary restraining order halting the Executive Order on Immigration.

Gorsuch confirmed the dis- and de- comments were his, even as Trump suggested otherwise (and, of course, personally attacked Blumenthal).  While others confirmed that Gorsuch was specifically referring to Trump's comments, Spicer offered this instead:

There's a big difference between commenting on the specific comments that have been made, and the tweet, and his general philosophy about the judiciary and the respect for his fellow judges. 

He literally went out of his way to say I'm not commenting on a specific instance. So to take what he said about a generalization and apply it to a specific is exactly what he intended not to do. 

And Spicer also noted that executive criticism of the judiciary was a time-honored tradition, and even Barack Obama did it in a State of the Union address.

I get it, but at some point is seems like there's clearly a double standard when it's how this is applied. When President Obama did it, there was no concern from this briefing room. When (Trump) does it, it's, you know, a ton of outrage. 

So, I checked to see what Obama said in his 2010 SOTU, where he made some very well-reported (and seriously wrong place, wrong time) comments, to see whether I could find a personal attack on one or more justices of the Supreme Court in Obama's remarks (emphasis added):

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

In 2015, on the fifth anniversary of the decision, Obama made a broader statement on the case, and I looked again for a personal attack against a SCOTUS justice (again, emphasis added):

Our democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard, and no one's voice is drowned out. But five years ago, a Supreme Court ruling allowed big companies - including foreign corporations - to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. The Citizens United decision was wrong, and it has caused real harm to our democracy.  With each new campaign season, this dark money floods our airwaves with more and more political ads that pull our politics into the gutter. It's time to reverse this trend. Rather than bolster the power of lobbyists and special interests, Washington should lift up the voices of ordinary Americans and protect their democratic right to determine the direction of the country that we love. 

Unless I'm blind, I don't see Obama doing what Trump did to Judge Robart - including allocating blame directly to the judge, "should anything happen."  And, if there's nothing Robart-like in Obama's statements, there certainly isn't anything remotely close to Trump's comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the Indiana-born "Mexican" judge who was involved in the Trump University case.

Remember that one, when Trump was a candidate?  Let's all refresh our memories, by reviewing these comments from campaign appearances and media interviews (emphasis added):

...very hostile judge...because it was me... there's a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief...he happens to be Spanish... he is Hispanic... a judge who is very hostile... extremely hostile to me... he has been extremely hostile to me... a very hostile judge. Now he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me. I said it loud and clear... A hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing... judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine... I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself... it's a disgrace that he's doing this... the judges in this court system, federal court... they ought to look into that Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace... he's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall... we are building a wall. He's a Mexican.We're building a wall between here and Mexico... he is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can't even believe... he is giving us unfair rulings Now, I saw "why?" Well, I'm building a wall, OK? And it's a wall between America and Mexico. Not another country. He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it... 

It makes me want to vomit all over again, just reading all of this hatred from the man who wanted to be - and now is - the president.

But - back to the point -- I'm STILL trying to find a similarity between Obama blasting a SCOTUS decision and Trump's comments about either Judge Robart or Judge Curiel. There is no double standard here, is there?

We might need some clarification from Sean Spicer on this one.

Dictionary Definitions

Alternative facts, we're told by Sean Spicer, are not lies. They're like two different weather forecasts.

The press was trying to make that seem like we were ignoring the facts. You can look at a weather report and one weather report comes out and says it's going to be cloudy, and the next one says there's going to be light rain. No one lied to you, it just means you interpreted the data in a way that you felt got you to a conclusion.

 Uh, Sean, is it warmer in the summer than it is in Virginia?

The Trump Administration, apparently not understanding the difference between facts and conclusions, might want to spend some time with Merriam-Webster, the dictionary with a great sense of timing, and humor.

You see, the MW has been helping people with the definitions of words like fact (shown below) and other trending searches, using its Twitter feed to educate people as Spicer, Conway, other surrogates and yes, even Trump himself, spout their alternative worldview.


In addition to attacking facts, the Trumpeters have kept up their attacks on the media, keeping the narrative that started early in the campaign when someone asked Trump a question he didn't like, or reported facts that Trump didn't like, or doubted an answer that Trump provided, or used unflattering pictures of him.

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, described by the San Antonio Current as Congress' top climate change denier (who's been into "alternative facts" long before they were cool), had this to say on the House floor the other day:

Just think what the media would be saying about President Trump if he were a Democrat. "He has tremendous energy. He campaigned for 18 months, puts in 15-hour days, and has the stamina of a bull elephant, like Teddy Roosevelt He is courageous and fearless. Given the amount of hate directed his way, no doubt he constantly receives death threats, but that doesn't curtail his public appearances or seem to worry him in the least..."

The national liberal media won't print that, or air it, or post it. Better to get your news directly from the president, In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth.

OK, forget for a moment the fact that there's a whole lot more to being president than having stamina, even though Trump used that effectively during the primary (remember "Low Energy" Jeb! Bush?) and during the general election with his comments about Hillary Clinton. I don't think we'd have to look all that hard to find examples of effective presidents who did not possess elephantine strength.

The media would be saying about a Democrat who said what Trump says, does what Trump does, exactly what they're saying about Donald Trump. They would call a Democrat on their lies, point by point, just as they're doing with Trump. They would question a Democrat's every move, should a Democrat do the same as Trump is doing. 

But the second part, getting the unvarnished truth, from Donald Trump himself? Seriously? 

I've been plenty critical of the media and how they handled things from the very beginning of Trump's candidacy, but I would never shift my news (and opinion) sources from established media outlets - newspapers, magazines, TV news, public television, (and their online components, some of which are fine and some of which are horrid) and start using the the president or his minions as the source of truth, varnished or otherwise.

Because, Representative Smith, you're talking about the man who suggested this:

I'm going to open up our libel laws so when [journalists] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.

You're talking about the man who

• banned media outlets during his campaign because they were 'mean' to him
• threatened a libel suit against the NY Times 
• thinks everything written or posted that is not flattering is fake news a lie, or a personal attack, 
• lies repeatedly, 
• appeared with an applauding crowd at his first 'press conference' and who takes a claque with him for other appearances. (And yes, in case you're wondering. claque is trending on MW).  

This is not the man who will provide us the unvarnished truth., unless you were thinking of the second definition, explained by the words crude and unfinished. Maybe that's what you meant?

No, this is the man who will provide us something else entirely. 

We'll get his view, which you might note, is in the bottom 50% of popular words, similar to Trump's approval rating according to Gallup and Quinnipiac polling after his first week in office. Coincidence, I wonder?

We'll get his opinion, his preference, his sentiment, his slant, and all the rest.

But at least for now, I'll look elsewhere for the truth. You can look to Trump for this other thing.