On a busy day at the White House

Mar 6th, 2019 10:53 am | By

Trump can multitask, at least he can when he has to pay off his consigliere.

On a busy day at the White House, President Trump hosted senators to talk about tax cuts, accused a Democratic congresswoman of distorting his condolence call to a soldier’s widow and suffered another court defeat for his travel ban targeting Muslim countries.

And at some point on Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017, Mr. Trump took the time to sign a $35,000 check to his lawyer, who had made hush payments to prevent alleged sexual misconduct from being exposed before the 2016 presidential election.

As one does, you know.

At the heart of last week’s congressional testimony by Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, was the sensational accusation that the sitting president of the United States financed an illegal cover-up from inside the White House. The dates on the newly available checks shed light on the parallel lives Mr. Trump was living by this account — at once managing affairs of state while quietly paying the price of keeping his personal secrets out of the public eye.

The president hosted a foreign leader in the Oval Office, then wrote a check. He haggled over legislation, then wrote a check. He traveled abroad, then wrote a check. On the same day he reportedly pressured the F.B.I. director to drop an investigation into a former aide, the president’s trust issued a check to Mr. Cohen in furtherance of what federal prosecutors have called a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws at the direction of Mr. Trump.

Some days were more corrupt than others.

Jim Jordan says meh it’s no big deal plus we knew that already. Others disagree.

“The $35,000 is an indication of the quality of that evidence, and it both shows the extent of Trump’s leading role and now leaves little doubt that he faces criminal prosecution after he leaves office for the same offenses for which Cohen will serve time,” said Robert F. Bauer, a law professor at New York University and former White House counsel for President Barack Obama.

Indeed, some people close to Mr. Trump have privately predicted that he will ultimately choose to seek a second term in part because of his legal exposure if he is not president. While there is no legal consensus on the matter, Justice Department policy says that a president cannot be indicted while in office.

Ok that would be a first – a president seeking a second term as a cunning plan to avoid prison.

The Times tells us what else Trump was doing on the day he signed each check the Times has (a couple are missing). This one has a certain drollness to it, until one gets to the Putin part:

After the Oct. 18 check came one on Nov. 21, just two days before Thanksgiving when Mr. Trump pardoned a turkey, saying, “I feel so good about myself,” and then defended Roy S. Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama who had been accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls. Mr. Trump also spoke by telephone that day with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Let’s make him feel bad about himself.



Oops your misogyny is showing

Mar 6th, 2019 10:05 am | By

McKinnon may have gone a step too far yesterday.



A relatively unknown cyclist

Mar 6th, 2019 9:37 am | By

Hadley Freeman on Rachel McKinnon’s triumphant own goal:

Two weeks ago Martina Navratilova, one of the greatest athletes of all time, leaped into the notoriously feverish gender debate and wrote that self-identified trans women should not have an automatic right to compete in women’s sports because they have unfair advantages from having been born male. The media, terrified of being on the wrong side of history, responded predictably, and headlines said that Navratilova was “criticised over ‘cheating’ trans women comments”, although this criticism came largely from a relatively unknown cyclist, Rachel McKinnon, with a history of incendiary remarks (such as that lesbians such as Navratilova should “get over their genital hang-ups” when it comes to choosing sexual partners). When Navratilova published a further blog last weekend, firmly restating her position, the headlines again suggested wrongdoing on her part, such as the BBC’s “Navratilova sorry for transgender ‘cheat’ language as she re-enters debate”.

This is what I kept saying – the Guardian and the BBC kept using infuriatingly loaded language. Freeman points out that the support of other star athletes got less attention.

One can firmly defend a person’s right to live in the gender identity of their choosing yet also look at photos of trans women athletes such as Gabrielle LudwigNatalie van Gogh and McKinnon standing alongside their strikingly smaller female team-mates, and think Navratilova’s arguments are worth investigating instead of dismissing with cries of bigotry.

That’s because a person’s right to live in the gender identity of their choosing can’t be completely free of qualification without bumping up against other people’s rights. Rachel Dolezal can “live in” whatever racial identity she likes, but she can’t claim prizes or roles intended for African-Americans without bumping up against the rights of African-Americans.

Feminists and the LGBT movement are usually allies, and yet they have become antagonists on this issue – and if there’s one person in this country who has, at the very least, exacerbated this, it’s Maria Miller. In 2017, as chair of the women and equalities committee, Miller produced a report on transgender rights in which she recommended that changing gender should be through a process of “self-declaration” rather than after consultation with a doctor.

But changing gender isn’t changing sex, as feminists have been pointing out.

Miller set off a savage culture war in which the losers were women, trans and not, all of whom felt unfairly attacked; and they were all correct. Biological women felt like they were being told to engage in magical thinking, deny their lived experience and accept the irrelevancy of biology, while trans women felt like they were being asked to defend their identity.

There’s quite a large gap between those two sets, though. Being told to engage in magical thinking, deny one’s lived experience, and accept the irrelevancy of biology is a good deal more basic and all-pervading than being asked to defend one’s “identity”…especially when what is meant by “identity” is so squishy and variable and already-politicized. The identity woman is rather different from the identity man who feels like a woman. Women can’t identify their way out of forced pregnancy.



Guest post: Your Bigliness is manifest

Mar 6th, 2019 9:09 am | By

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on A terrible example for Donnie Junior.

A Fox in a Box, and a Chair that Declares (under Hair).

Hmmm.

I do not like Big Macs and Fries,

I do not like them served with Lies.

I will not eat them in your House,

Not with Epstein, or with Krauss.

Please put your fountain pen away,

I will not sign your NDA.

I will not eat them on the Mall,

I will not eat them by your Wall.

I will not load your Smocking Gun,

Or covfefe on Air Force One.

I will not catch your paper towels,

Or Retweet all your Twitter howls.

I will not march in your Parades,

I doubt that you had stellar grades.

You claim the Largest and the Best,

Your Bigliness is manifest.

You find good people on both sides;

(You’re also cool with pesticides).

You’ve never paid the debts you owed

You are Two Scoops shy a load.

All this gold sure hurts my eyes,

I do not like Big Macs and Fries.

(With my aplogies to Theodor Seuss Geisel)



Tainting the process to favor his family

Mar 6th, 2019 8:57 am | By

It’s not just Prince Jared, it’s also Princess Ivanka. Well of course it is.

President Donald Trump pressured his then-chief of staff John Kelly and White House counsel Don McGahn to grant his daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump a security clearance against their recommendations, three people familiar with the matter told CNN.

The President’s crusade to grant clearances to his daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, rankled West Wing officials.

While Trump has the legal authority to grant clearances, most instances are left up to the White House personnel security office, which determines whether a staffer should be granted one after the FBI has conducted a background check. But after concerns were raised by the personnel office, Trump pushed Kelly and McGahn to make the decision on his daughter and son-in-law’s clearances so it did not appear as if he was tainting the process to favor his family, sources told CNN. After both refused, Trump granted them their security clearances.

Ah now that’s an interesting detail. So he did manage to grasp that it would look taintish if he simply ordered it, so instead of deciding it would look taintish because it was taintish and therefore he shouldn’t do it, he pushed others to do it and then ordered it when they balked. I think that kind of thing is seen as damning by prosecutors in criminal cases? Evidence that the defendant was aware of breaking the law? Trump does a quite convincing job of appearing completely blind and deaf to all norms and rules and laws, so it’s useful to learn that at least in this case he was deliberately covert about what he was doing.

The latest revelation also contradicts Ivanka Trump’s denial to ABC News three weeks ago, when she said her father had “no involvement” regarding her or Kushner’s clearances.

Yeah well. Princess I. is a stone cold liar and fraud. Don’t let the window dummy appearance fool you.

CNN says several sources told them she could have been unaware of Donnie’s machinations. Whatever. She should, at a minimum, be well aware she shouldn’t be working for Daddy’s administration at all. She’s not so brain-dead that she couldn’t have done some research on the rules around nepotism and corruption.

On Tuesday, the White House rebuffed a request from House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, who asked for documents pertaining to the security clearance process. White House counsel Pat Cipollone said the committee’s request for the information was “without legal support, clearly premature, and suggests a breach of the constitutionally required accommodation process.”

The White House’s rejection increases the chances of a subpoena from the House.

Do it.



Another front in the religious wars

Mar 5th, 2019 4:05 pm | By

Eliza Griswold at the New Yorker starts with a story of a father and two sons, Pehlu, Irshad and Arif Khan, driving home from a market in Jaipur with two cows.

That afternoon, Irshad climbed into the truck alongside his father and brother. Cows are sacred to Hindus but Irshad had made this trip dozens of times since he was a boy. He’d heard rumors of potential trouble for Muslims at roadside checkpoints, where members of a militant Hindu youth group called the Bajrang Dal were intimidating Muslim traders in the name of protecting cows. Still, Irshad wasn’t nervous. “We had no fear at all,” he told me recently. “We were coming from a government-organized fair, and buying and selling cows is a legal business.”

The militant Hindu nationalism that the group espouses is not new. Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Gandhi, on January 30, 1948, was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or R.S.S., a violent right-wing organization that promotes Hindu supremacy. Members of the Bajrang Dal are the movement’s foot soldiers, deployed in instances of mob violence or for targeted attacks against Muslims and other religious minorities. Founded in 1984, the group was part of a movement to destroy the Babri Masjid, a sixteenth-century mosque located in Ayodhya, India, which was built by the emperor Babur. (The mosque was ultimately demolished during a violent R.S.S. rally in 1992.)

Since Modi’s election in 2014 the Bajrang Dal have become far more powerful.

In the past seven years, according to Factchecker.in, an organization that tracks hate crimes, there have been a hundred and sixty-eight attacks by Hindu extremists, in the name of protecting cows, against Muslims and other religious minorities. The attacks left forty-six people dead. “It’s really a very, very bad moment for Muslims in India,” Salman Khurshid, India’s former foreign minister and the author of a forthcoming book, “Invisible Citizens,” on the systematic oppression of Muslims in the country, told me.

And, of course, a Bajrang Dal gang stopped the three on their way home and beat them up. The father died.

When the news of his death spread, the boys said that the mob returned and demanded his body so that they could desecrate it. The doctor hid the corpse in the hospital basement, and a police unit moved the boys to another hospital for their safety.

Nice touch.

Modi is up for re-election this year and he’s worried. People voted for him because he was expected to be good for the economy, but that didn’t pan out.

Some analysts worry that he will try to distract voters from the slowing economy by doubling down on nationalist rhetoric. “With little to show in terms of economy or development, Modi’s only remaining platform is nationalism,” Tanweer Alam, a political analyst, told me. Many critics argue that the rhetoric espoused by Modi and the B.J.P. has also intensified tensions in Kashmir, where the Indian government is struggling to quell a year-long spike in violence. In February, forty Indian soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber, who blew himself up by driving into a paramilitary convoy. The bomber claimed to be a local man named Aadil Ahmad Dar, who, in the past year, had left home to join the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which is based in Pakistan. It was the most lethal attack in the region in decades, and Modi responded by threatening “a befitting reply,” and then launched air strikes against northern Pakistan. Pakistan subsequently shot down at least one Indian jet, further heightening tensions.

Could we lock Modi and Trump in a room and then lose the key? If you wanted to add Kim to the mix I wouldn’t object.

The US hasn’t helped.

The United States has generally remained silent regarding the repression of minorities in Modi’s India. In 2015, when Modi was selected as one of Time magazine’s hundred most influential people in the world, President Obama wrote a glowing tribute and said nothing of the militant nationalism that helped bring Modi to power. Despite President Trump’s public support of religious freedom, he has not criticized the oppression of religious minorities in India. Modi has made several high-profile visits to the U.S., including a state visit in 2017.

So that’s one thing both Obama and Trump got wrong; how touching.

Last July, the pattern of killings of Muslims grew so dire—in 2018, there were thirteen fatal cow-related lynchings—that the Indian Supreme Court demanded that the legislature formulate laws against the practice, which it has yet to do. Last month, Human Rights Watch released a hundred-and-four-page report documenting the violence, and the inaction—and abuses—of the government officials charged with investigating the crimes. “Lynching has become a nationalist project,” Mohammad Ali, a prominent Indian journalist who is currently working on a book about the phenomenon, told me. He said few perpetrators are punished, which has created a culture of impunity. Killers are lauded in some quarters as heroes for defending the faith and eradicating Muslims.

There are videos, many videos.

At the Khans’ house, Shabnam, Irshad’s wife, walked into the courtyard carrying their third child, an infant son, who screamed at the presence of strangers. She told me that their life had grown more chaotic with Pehlu gone; they missed his income, yes, but also the quiet order that he instilled in the family. “There’s no one to bind the family together now,” she told me. She had first heard of the attack a few hours after it happened. A police officer called from a nearby village to inform her and, soon after, someone sent her the YouTube video.

I asked her if it was still online; she nodded, and one of the local human-rights activists pulled out his phone and brought up the YouTube channel. We scrolled through it, looking for the attack. There were dozens of similar videos showing killings of Muslims, which were deeply disturbing both for their violence and for the obvious pride that the attackers took in being Internet stars. In one, a man wearing white pants and a bright pink sweater beat a Muslim man to death with a stick and sets him on fire, accusing him of committing “love jihad”: falling in love with a Hindu woman. After recording the murder, the attacker turns to the camera and says, “I am appealing to all Hindu sisters that don’t get into the trap of these jihadis. These people will win your heart and satisfy their lust.”

Then they find the video of Pehlu’s murder.

Updating to add: for further reading, HRW’s report on vigilante groups who murder cattle herders, and their links to the BJP.



Have we hit bottom yet?

Mar 5th, 2019 11:37 am | By

Sarah Sanders issues a statement on the investigation of her boss’s racketeering.

“Killing babies.”

This is an official executive branch statement.



A terrible example for Donnie Junior

Mar 5th, 2019 11:06 am | By

These days Trump is all about the “No YOU are!”

This week, however, the current president seems to have taken his fondness for projection to a new level.

Friday, March 1: Facing allegations that he’s committed a variety of crimes, Trump insisted “real crimes were committed” by Democrats. He echoed the argument two days later.

Sunday, March 3: After House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) raised the prospect of Trump running afoul of the law, Trump tweeted that Schiff may have run afoul of the law.

Tuesday, March 5: Accused of obstructing justice, Trump said via Twitter that Democrats “are obstructing justice.”

You know how it is – he hears an exciting new phrase so he has to try it out a lot, and the Twitter is just lying there so why not use it?

It’s unsettling just how often this comes up.

Take the Russia scandal, for example. Confronted with allegations that his political operation colluded with Russian attackers, Trump said Democrats colluded with Russia. Told that the Kremlin supported his candidacy, Trump responded by saying Russia supported Democrats. Accused of being a manipulated pawn for Vladimir Putin, Trump accused Barack Obama of being Putin’s “patsy.”

As we discussed last summer, like an intemperate child, his I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I instincts are finely tuned after extensive practice.

Well in all fairness it doesn’t take a whole lot of practice to know how to swap “Democrats” for “Trump” in every sentence. Even Trump can figure out how that works without too much brow-furrowing.

Look no further than the 2016 campaign: whenever Hillary Clinton would criticize Trump, it was a near certainty that Trump would then made the identical accusation against Clinton. After a while, as regular readers may recall, this got a little creepy.

Clinton accused Trump of being unstable and reckless, so Trump said Clinton is “unstable” and “reckless.” Clinton said Trump mistreated women, so Trump saidClinton mistreated women. Clinton accused Trump of bigotry, so Trump said Clinton’s a “bigot.” Clinton questioned Trump’s temperament, so Trump said Clinton had a bad “temperament.” Clinton said Trump makes a poor role model for children, so Trump said Clinton sets “a terrible example for my son and the children in this country.”

Hahahahahahahahahahaha that’s genuinely funny.



Move over, women

Mar 5th, 2019 10:08 am | By

About as “nifty” as interviewing Rachel Dolezal for Black History Month.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1102980693217431552



A thing we can’t know

Mar 5th, 2019 9:58 am | By

The incoherence of it all.

Victoria Derbyshire asks “What about the suggestion that trans athletes should have a separate category of competition?”

So that muddies the waters right off the bat. The issue is trans women competing against women. Trans men aren’t being unfair to men or women by competing against men, so the issue isn’t “trans athletes” in general but trans women who compete against women. The bad question allows Clark to brush it off with “Come on, it’s 2 thousand 19 now” and similar generalities, ending up at “It’s totally unfair – we are human beings – nobody chooses to be transgender.” Wait, now – nobody? Do we know that? Does anybody know that? How could anybody know that?

Especially now that the standard has become “identifies as.” The Ideological Command is that if someone “identifies as” trans / a woman / a man / trans-non-binary / genderqueer and so on to infinity, then that is what she/he/they is. It is mandatory that we all take the identifying-as to equal being the category identified as; it’s a very serious crime to do anything short of that.

Given that fact, and the heated abusive rhetoric that backs up the mandate, how can we possibly know that no one chooses to be trans?

There’s also quite a lot of ideology around the idea that lots of people are potentially trans who haven’t quite realized it yet, or who are afraid to embrace it fully, or who are trans half the week and not the other half of the week. There’s quite a lot of moving between categories. There’s a lot of expansion of the categories, which means there’s a lot of variation in the descriptions of the categories. How, then, can we possibly know that no one chooses to be trans?

Also: there are a lot of psychopaths and narcissists and other kinds of shit-stirrers out there. There are a lot of trans women for whom the whole point of being a trans woman seems to be aggression against that inferior category of women who just are women, without the trans part. How, then, can we possibly know that no one chooses to be trans?

And even if none of that were true, still how could we know that no one chooses to be trans? It’s a mental state, and certainty about the mental state of all other people is not a thing we get to have.

Actually, it’s the other way around. Nobody chooses to be born whatever sex it is. We don’t choose it, it’s just a fact. We also don’t choose how well it suits us to be that sex rather than the other one, and that too is universal. There’s a range of intensity to how unheimlich our sex feels, and for some it’s so intense that they prefer to move to the other one – but that again is something no one can be certain about, including the person who feels it, because she or he doesn’t know how it compares to what everyone else feels. We all know only what it feels like to be ourselves, each one one at a time.

Lucy Clark is just wrong to make such a confident claim. Nobody can possibly know that no one chooses to be trans.



Favorites

Mar 4th, 2019 4:41 pm | By

In another “you have got to be kidding” moment, Trump announces on Twitter that he’s giving special treatment to Alabama.

Many observers are asking, with some heat, why he is “telling FEMA directly” to give Alabama “the A plus treatment” when he didn’t do so in the case of Puerto Rico or of California. Shouldn’t “the A plus treatment” be standard after a major disaster? Isn’t that what FEMA is for? Surely the president of the US isn’t directing better emergency relief to states that vote Republican than he directs to states that vote Democratic or have too many brown people…is he? (I wonder if he realizes African-Americans make up about 25% of Alabama’s population. Legacy of cotton-belt slavery, my dude.)



A special threat

Mar 4th, 2019 4:15 pm | By

Prince Jared’s buddies the Saudi dictators:

A dual citizen of Saudi Arabia and the United States had been imprisoned in the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh for about a week when he heard a knock on his door.

Guards dragged Walid Fitaihi, a Harvard-trained physician, to another room, according to a friend who took down the prisoner’s detailed account of his treatment. Dr. Fitaihi told the friend he was slapped, blindfolded, stripped to his underwear and bound to a chair. He was shocked with electricity in what appears to have been a single session of torture that lasted about an hour.

His tormentors whipped his back so severely that he could not sleep on it for days, his friend said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals. The doctor had described the physical abuse, in general terms, to his relatives as well, a person close to them said.

The Saudis grabbed him in November 2017, in what they claim is a crackdown on corruption (yeah right). He’s still locked up. He’s a US citizen.

Lots of people were tortured in that “crackdown” and are still locked up.

But Dr. Fitaihi’s American citizenship means that his mistreatment, which has not been previously reported, may now pose a special threat to Saudi relations with Washington. The Trump administration is already struggling to quell a bipartisan backlash against the kingdom over the killing last fall of the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, a Virginia resident and Washington Post columnist who was executed and dismembered by a team of Saudi agents in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul.

Prince Jared met with Prince Mohammed bin Salman last week, their first meeting since Khashoggi was tortured to death. They met so that Jared could play diplomat settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict some more.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has defied a congressional deadline to report about who was responsible for the killing. Instead, President Trump has equivocated about whether Prince Mohammed might have authorized it, even as he has extolled the value of Saudi Arabian oil sales and defense contracts.

The guy has his priorities.

Saudi officials have denied any mistreatment of detainees. A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington said the kingdom has signed the convention against torture and prohibits its use.

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes any and all allegations of ill treatment of defendants awaiting trial or prisoners serving their sentences very seriously,” the spokesman said.

Nope.



Junk in neat stacks

Mar 4th, 2019 11:39 am | By

He’s doing it again.

Never mind that these college kids might prefer to have something more elegant and memorable to match the surroundings, just give them the crap they can get for a few bucks on any busy downtown corner.



A flurry of document demands

Mar 4th, 2019 11:13 am | By

Meanwhile…the House is swinging into action.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee delivered a flurry of document demands to the executive branch and the broader Trump world on Monday that detailed the breadth of the Democrats’ investigation into possible obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power by President Trump and his administration.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman, made clear on Monday that the new majority intends to train its attention on actions at the heart of Mr. Trump’s norm-bending presidency — actions that could conceivably form the basis of a future impeachment proceeding.

It will be interesting if the hearings clearly establish that Trump has committed multiple crimes, and he gets re-elected anyway. “Interesting” isn’t quite the right word, but…

The letters from Mr. Nadler, dated March 4, went to 81 agencies, individuals and other entities tied to the president, including the Trump Organization, the Trump campaign, the Trump Foundation, the presidential inaugural committee, the White House, the Justice Department, the F.B.I. and dozens of the president’s closest aides who counseled him as he launched attacks against federal investigations into him and his associates, the press, and the federal judiciary. The committee will also investigate accusations of corruption, including possible violations of campaign finance law, the Constitution’s ban on foreign emoluments and the use of office for personal gain.

Republicans assert that Democrats have already decided to target Mr. Trump for impeachment, saying repeatedly in recent weeks that despite public statements to the contrary, the new majority is determined to kick Mr. Trump out of office. (Even if the House were to impeach Mr. Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate would have to hold a trial and is unlikely to remove the president without an overwhelming case of wrongdoing.)

Like, how overwhelming? What do they need? He’s done much of his wrongdoing right out in the open where we can all see it, including Republican senators. Firing Comey to protect himself? Saying so in public? Telling the Russian ambassador and foreign minister so? Bullying Sessions for recusing himself? Forcing Sessions out? Selecting an apparently more compliant AG? Threatening witnesses on Twitter day in and day out? Getting McCabe fired? Getting FBI agents fired? Meeting alone with Putin? Advertising his golf course on Twitter? Lying about the payout to Stormy Daniels?

Dangerous times.



As the witness broke omertà

Mar 4th, 2019 10:53 am | By

There were historical echoes in that hearing room last week.

Any onetime Mafia investigator who listened to the Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen testify Wednesday would have immediately recognized the congressional hearing’s historical analogue — what America witnessed on Capitol Hill wasn’t so much John Dean turning on President Richard Nixon, circa 1973; it was the mobster Joseph Valachi turning on the Cosa Nostra, circa 1963.

Also perhaps any consumer of popular movies and tv shows would recognize the broad plot outline, even if Joseph Valachi didn’t come to mind.

And it’s had that overtone all along – the story is packed to the rafters with prosecutors, serving and former; packed with feds, packed with rats and stool pigeons, packed with a mob boss and his filthy hangers-on.

The Valachi hearings, led by Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, opened the country’s eyes for the first time to the Mafia, as the witness broke “omertà” — the code of silence — to speak in public about “this thing of ours,” Cosa Nostra. He explained just how “organized” organized crime actually was — with soldiers, capos, godfathers and even the “Commission,” the governing body of the various Mafia families.

Fighting the Mafia posed a uniquely hard challenge for investigators. Mafia families were involved in numerous distinct crimes and schemes, over yearslong periods, all for the clear benefit of its leadership, but those very leaders were tough to prosecute because they were rarely involved in the day-to-day crime. They spoke in their own code, rarely directly ordering a lieutenant to do something illegal, but instead offering oblique instructions or expressing general wishes that their lieutenants simply knew how to translate into action.

Those explosive — and arresting — hearings led to the 1970 passage of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO, a law designed to allow prosecutors to go after enterprises that engaged in extended, organized criminality. RICO laid out certain “predicate” crimes — those that prosecutors could use to stitch together evidence of a corrupt organization and then go after everyone involved in the organization as part of an organized conspiracy. While the headline-grabbing RICO “predicates” were violent crimes like murder, kidnapping, arson and robbery, the statute also focused on crimes like fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering and even aiding or abetting illegal immigration.

Andrew McCabe was talking about “predicates” the other week; it was a new term to me. The Trump takeover has been an unwanted education in organized crime for me.

Prosecutors weren’t sure how to use RICO at first but then they got the hang of it.

[B]y the mid-1980s, federal investigators in the Southern District of New York were hitting their stride under none other than the crusading United States attorney Rudy Giuliani, who as the head of the Southern District brought charges in 1985 against the heads of the city’s five dominant Mafia families.

And now he’s working for an upstart mob family that has stolen the entire federal government. How did we get here?

What lawmakers heard Wednesday sounded a lot like a racketeering enterprise: an organization with a few key players and numerous overlapping crimes — not just one conspiracy, but many. Even leaving aside any questions about the Mueller investigation and the 2016 campaign, Mr. Cohen leveled allegations that sounded like bank fraud, charity fraud and tax fraud, as well as hints of insurance fraud, obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.

RICO was designed to include the people at the top who don’t issue criminal instructions, but who also don’t have to because they use a code that everyone understands.

Exactly, it appears, as Mr. Trump did at the top of his family business: “Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates,” Mr. Cohen said. Mr. Trump, Mr. Cohen said, “doesn’t give orders. He speaks in code. And I understand that code.”

What’s notable about Mr. Cohen’s comments is how they paint a consistent (and credible) pattern of Mr. Trump’s behavior: The former F.B.I. director James Comey, in testimony nearly two years ago in the wake of his firing, made almost exactly the same point and used almost exactly the same language. Mr. Trump never directly ordered him to drop the Flynn investigation, Mr. Comey said, but he made it all too clear what he wanted — the president isolated Mr. Comey, with no other ears around, and then said he hoped Mr. Comey “can let this go.” As Mr. Comey said, “I took it as, this is what he wants me to do.”

Only…you’re not supposed to use the code when you’re talking to a fed. Not unless you know for sure he’s dirty. Trump seems to have been kind of confused about that part.

He also does it to all of us, of course, on Twitter every day – but again, that could end up biting him. I certainly hope so.



Trust but verify

Mar 3rd, 2019 5:32 pm | By

Tick tick tick tick

Rep. Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said that as far as he’s concerned there’s “direct evidence” of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. Specifically, Schiff says that the 2016 offer from a Russian lawyer for information on Hillary Clinton to members of Trump’s campaign is the smoking gun. “I think there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump,” Schiff said on CBS’ Face the Nation, when he was asked if he had “direct evidence of collusion with Russia.”

“They offer that dirt,” Schiff went on. “There is an acceptance of that offer in writing from the President’s son Don Junior and there is overt acts in furtherance of that.” Beyond that though “there’s also abundant circumstantial evidence,” Schiff added. “There is, for example, evidence of Manafort sharing internal polling data with someone linked to the Russian intelligence services.”

Direct, and circumstantial. Both. Ticktickticktick

Schiff wasn’t alone in talking about evidence that incriminates Trump in terms of Russia contacts. Sen. Mark Warner, who is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there is “enormous evidence” of possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the election. “I’m going to reserve judgment until I’m finished, but there’s no one who can factually say there isn’t plenty of evidence of collaboration or communication between the Trump Organization and Russians,” Warner told NBC’s Meet the Press. “I have never in my lifetime seen a presidential campaign, from a person of either party, have this much outreach to a foreign country and a foreign country that the intelligence community [says], and our committee has validated, intervened massively in our election and intervened with an attempt to help one candidate, Donald Trump, and hurt another, Hillary Clinton.”

But he says there was no collusion. Can’t we just take him at his word?



How insufferable does a spiritual leader have to be?

Mar 3rd, 2019 1:06 pm | By

Catherine Bennett points out that media-friendly clerics have one persona for Thought for the Day and another for, say, newspaper columns.

And welcome to the amoral maze, where our dilemma of the week is: just how insufferable does a spiritual leader have to be before he or she becomes unqualified to preach at the general public? Or to put it another way, why should the church have a monopoly on excommunication?

The question is not, emphatically, restricted to the case of the ubiquitous prelate, blogger and speaker, Giles Fraser, although with his recent blog – chastising women who fail to stay near home for the future convenience of incontinent fathers – he has done more than most to focus attention on the sort of qualities that should, ideally, distinguish a Thought for the Day contributor from, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Partly because they are subject to editorial control, and no doubt because they would like to be invited back, TFTD contributors generally refrain, in this slot, from the overtly prescriptive, preferring to agree with their own recycled platitudes: sometimes bad things happen; money can’t buy happiness; it’s good to talk. Alternatively: I saw a nice film/sky/pair of shoes recently; it put me in mind of Jesus/the Prophet/Guru Nanak.

I find this helpful, because I’ve somehow always thought Giles Fraser was that kind of vicar, and so I’ve regularly been surprised when he says something reactionary.

Fraser’s latest expressions of enthusiasm for patriarchal arrangements, whether it’s his support for censorship in a girls’ faith school or tweeted nostalgia for pre-feminist times (“Don’t say stuck in the past. The past was better. Much better”), suggest that the principal problem with TFTD may be less, today, that it tests listeners’ endurance, more that its Thinkers insult their values. There was probably a time when much of his UK audience would have agreed, quite happily, with Fraser, that career women neglect their families, or with TFTD colleague, the bishop of Norwich, that marriage is for men and women only. But these, along with other cherished religious prejudices, have become ever more irreconcilable – when they are not transparently discriminatory – with evolving secular thinking, in a country where more than half have no faith.

Secular groups have campaigned to be included in TFTD, but Reverend Beeb always says no.

Catholics, when lecturing the masses on niceness, now do so between headlines about their own church’s staggering moral failures. Notwithstanding the advance of virtuous journalists and spiritual randomers from the life-coach end of the TFTD talent pool, promotion within an established faith hierarchy remains the most reliable route to freelance preaching work, whether it’s in the House of Lords, on an independent commission or in defiance of the melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, on late-night news programmes.

No sooner had his nappy meditation been eviscerated by women who both work and care for their elderly parents than our tireless Pampers Savonarola, Giles Fraser, was addressing us again, from Newsnight, albeit in the more humble, ecumenical style that once seemed to fit so well with Guardianvalues. Was this why we never guessed that our own “Loose Canon”, who once excoriated his own church for promoting a cleric opposed to the ordination of women, would one day write: “It is the daughter of the elderly gentleman that should be wiping his bottom”? Also: “The attraction of socially conservative and traditional values are that they constitute a highly successful form of mutual care.”

So I’m not the only one who has been confused about Giles Fraser. Good to know.

But it would be wrong to single out Fraser merely because, with the support of entranced progressives, he so often does so himself. His moral exhortations of a morning, evening or late evening – now that he reveals his patriarchal hankerings – are not necessarily more loathsome than those of more cautious colleagues. You can’t tell, from a brief, TFTD introduction, which of its Anglican bishops failed adequately to respond to allegations of sexual abuse, nor which of its regulars oppose same sex marriage, or deny women jobs or prosper by rarely mentioning that they consider homosexuality to be a sin.

Moreover, faith professionals enjoy an exemption, under the Equality Act, allowing them to discriminate for spiritual purposes. But what is the BBC’s excuse?

That it sees itself as a kind of church?



Bad writing award

Mar 3rd, 2019 12:38 pm | By

I think the first step toward being a journalist ought to be a reasonably solid grip on the language you plan to use. There shouldn’t be a mistake or incoherence or clumsiness in every paragraph, as there is in this piece on A Nopen Letter saying…no, I’ll let the reporter explain what it says.

Dozens of female celebrities, politicians and women’s rights campaigners have condemned the “narrow and archaic” opinions they say are are squashing transgender rights in Scotland.

Squashing? Squashing rights? That’s a peculiar word to use. Crushing, yes, quashing, yes, but squashing? It sounds silly, and off.

More than 70 women from across the UK have penned an open letter hitting out at commentators they claim are trying to “roll back the rights” of transgender women.

“Hitting out at” – that’s a more familiar idiom but it’s ridiculous and poisonous. Stating a position, even one that opposes another position, is not “hitting out.”

Since the Scottish Government pledged to reform the Gender Recognition Act to be more inclusive of transgender people, critics have argued doing so will impact on the rights of non-transgender women and girls.

Vague, clumsy, uninformative. “Inclusive” meaning what? “[Have an] impact on” how? Be specific.

Various commentators, news outlets and politicians have argued that by being able to self-declare your gender or non-binary status, services and safe places for women would no longer be safe.

Fail. Subject-verb agreement, also two halves of sentence agreement.

Some argue that by allowing transgender women who may not completed their gender reassignment access to services designated for women it would be impacting on women’s rights.

Jesus. More subject-verb chaos plus there’s even a word missing.

Today, scores of women have joined together for the first time in hitting out at the claims, with signatories of the open letter including Dame Emma Thompson, MPs Mhairi Black and Hannah Bardell, members of women’s aid organisations, charities, lawyers and academics.

Scores? How many scores? Two? Three? Why not just say the number? (I think I saw somewhere that it’s 70. 3.5 score, so not all that many scores, but it sounds big.) And another “hitting out” already.

This person may identify as a journalist, but…



Only one perspective ever matters

Mar 3rd, 2019 10:55 am | By

The Beeb might as well hire McKinnon at this rate.

Tennis icon Martina Navratilova has apologised for using the term “cheating” when discussing whether transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in women’s sport.

Navratilova – one of the most successful tennis players of all time – has been criticised as “transphobic” for writing that transgender women had “unfair” physical advantages over female opponents.

There it is again – the “somebody called her transphobic” well-poisoning right at the beginning, so that readers will be fully primed to despise Navratilova before they even know what she said.

On Saturday, former British swimmer Sharron Davies told BBC Sport that many current athletes “feel the same way” and that trans athletes should not compete in female events to “protect women’s sport”.

However, transgender cyclist Rachel McKinnon, who won a UCI Masters Track World Championship title in October, said Davies was “sharing hate speech”.

Athlete Ally – a US-based organisation that campaigns for LGBT sportspeople – cut its links with Navratilova in the wake of the 62-year-old’s original comments, saying they “perpetuate dangerous myths”.

And there that is again – giving Navratilova’s age but not giving McKinnon’s age.

They’ve chosen a side and they’re sticking to it.

https://twitter.com/glosswitch/status/1102183988632977410



Simp simp simple

Mar 3rd, 2019 10:30 am | By

Listen up, people, words are magic, and that’s all you need to know. Simple.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1102265197547474945

Self-identification=reality. Simple. In other words, what people say about themselves is true, period, end of story. Simple.

So if someone tells you she’s a beluga whale, she is a beluga whale. Simple.

If someone tells you he’s Denali, he is Denali. Simple.

Words are magic. Simple. Anyone who says otherwise is An Enemy of the People. (What if she says she isn’t An Enemy of the People? That question is against the law.)

Now that we know words are magic, life is going to become a whole lot simpler. I can’t wait to get started.