I saw this tweet

#BREAKING On the @HouseFloor, @housegop voted to ZERO out our election security funding. @RepMikeQuigley & @WhipHoyer passionately spoke to defend the USA. @HouseDemocrats broke into chant of “USA! USA!”

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) July 19, 2018

so I looked it up. The Post:

House Republicans on Thursday approved a spending bill that excludes new money for election security grants to states, provoking a furious reaction from Democrats amid a national controversy over Russian election interference.

The spending bill passed 217-199. Democrats’ bid to add hundreds of millions more in election spending was rejected 182-232 — as Republicans were unmoved by Democrats floor speeches decrying the funding changes and chanting “USA! USA!”

At issue is a grants program overseen by the federal Election Assistance Commission and aimed at helping states administer their elections and improve voting systems; Democrats want to continue grant funding through 2019, while Republicans say the program already has been fully funded.

Let’s definitely err on the side of not spending enough, because hey it’s only elections.

Bad bad very bad.

This is terrifying — and it makes clear the danger of our never knowing (even translators aren’t stenographers!) what tricks Putin pulled on our gullible, easily flattered, baby POTUS, or what commitments Putin extracted. Trump is a living, breathing threat to each of us. https://t.co/l2QZuqbGfj

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) July 18, 2018

Retired CIA Chief of Russian operations https://t.co/iwi0eDWl95

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 18, 2018

Reading this, everyone should feel the dark shadow of evil drawing across our country. Your politics shouldn't matter. The idea that a President would turn over a former Ambassador & help with prosecution of a man who crusaded against corruption in Russia should be unthinkable. https://t.co/OP1yVr72iL

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) July 18, 2018

So let’s see, in the past 24 hours, Trump has 1) threatened to walk away from Article 5 of NATO, 2) said Russia is not still meddling in 2018 after his appointed DNI issued a red alert, and 3) threatened to turn over McFaul and Browder to Putin for questioning.

The GOP yawns.

— Amy Siskind 🏳️‍🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) July 18, 2018

No "consultation" is needed to make clear that U.S. will never cooperate in Putin's crusade against Bill Browder or former U.S. officials, like Ambassador McFaul.@McFaul served his country honorably. His freedom is not up for negotiation or to be offered up as a gift to Putin. https://t.co/B7mqBdpx8x

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) July 18, 2018

Let’s recall why Putin began making outrageous, false accusations against @McFaul: Mike stood up for human rights and against Russian oppression. That terrified Putin. The fact that @realDonaldTrump won’t stand up for an American patriot is a travesty https://t.co/Z6zlPYGV5Y

— Samantha Power (@SamanthaJPower) July 18, 2018

After White House inexplicably expresses willingness to consider Russia's demand to hand over former US Ambassador Michael @McFaul "for questioning," Amb. @McFaul joins us tonight to respond.

— Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) July 18, 2018

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on Look at ambassadors not there.

Somewhat OT, but still on the subject of liars, here’s your next Supreme Court justice:

Asked at an American Enterprise Institute event in March 2016 if he could think of a case that deserved to be overturned, Kavanaugh said: “Yes.” Asked if he could specify a case, Kavanaugh first responded: “No,” prompting laughter from the audience.

Hahahahaha. It’s funny because they know he means Roe v. Wade (and hell, maybe Griswold v. Connecticut while you’re at it), but they know he can’t say it because one day he may get nominated to the Court and have to testify that gosh, he’s never really thought about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I mean, he’s personally pro-life but you know, stare decisis is really super duper important and all that but on the other hand there are always exceptions like Plessy v. Ferguson was bad law, so you never know but I can’t prejudge a case and I’ve certainly never ever ever expressed an opinion on overturning Roe because it’s totally normal for an adult who’s been through law school and a couple of decades of a legal career to never think about one of the most famous cases in modern Court history.

The crowd laughed because they knew it was a game. Kavanaugh’s gonna commit perjury, and Susan Collins will pretend to believe it, and isn’t that hilarious! Checkmate, libs!

People in charge of an event called Modern Witches Confluence 2018 wrote a poisonous Facebook post today congratulating themselves on having banished and shunned the feminist historian Max Dashu, who was scheduled to be on a panel. No prizes for guessing why.

Dear Community,

We sincerely apologize for involving Max Dashu in our workshop line-up. Since your community concerns have been raised regarding Dashu’s trans-exclusionary views, we have removed Max Dashu from our teaching line-up, and she will no longer be an influence on the Modern Witches Confluence. We appreciate you voicing your concerns, and we apologize for not responding to them sooner.

We should have done our research before asking Dashu to join us for our event, and after this incident, we know to do our due-diligence. We do not support or endorse those who shame, oppress, or exclude others. The success of our gathering will be built on a shared vision of inclusion, and the collective desire to liberate ourselves from societal rigidity, hatred, and separatist categorization.

We hope that by righting this wrong, the LGBTQ community and beyond will feel safe and welcomed to join us for our event in October. Please keep letting us know how we can do better. This is a community of many diverse voices, and we will need to keep voicing concerns, and listening, in order to grow and evolve.

Contact us at: info@witchesconfluence.org

with Love,

MWC

For what it’s worth, Max doesn’t even have “trans-exclusionary views.” She wrote a Facebook post critical of violence aimed at lesbians at the San Francisco Pride march recently, but that’s hardly “exclusionary.” She is a respected scholar in the field – but hey, somebody somewhere claims she has “trans-exclusionary views” so that’s the end of it. Shun her.

If Putin isn’t contributing trolls and bots to this “movement” he’s missed a trick, because they’re doing a fabulous job of dividing the left.

Trump has been burning the place up since yesterday. He called John Brennan “a very bad person,” he called Montenegro “aggressive” and speculated it could get us into World War III being so aggressive, he ranted about Trump Derangement Syndrome and its responsibility for our failure to be awed by his success at kissing Putin’s bum.

Vanity Fair:

“Membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that’s attacked,” Carlson said to Trump. “So let’s say Montenegro, which joined last year, is attacked. Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?” In response, Trump told Carlson that he sympathized with his view. “I’ve asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people,” the president said. “They’re very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations you’re in World War III.”

…

By casting doubt on the founding principle of NATO, Trump again seemed to side with America’s adversaries over its allies. As Nicholas Burns, who served as the U.S. ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush, explained to me last week, the NATO alliance is only effective as a deterrent against Russian aggression if President Vladimir Putin believes that the U.S. and the alliance’s 28 other members will respect Article 5. “The big danger here is that Putin needs to believe that Trump is the leader of NATO, is willing to defend NATO countries that could be threatened by Russia,” he told me. “That is what deterrence is all about, that is how deterrence works, right? The other guy, in this case the adversarial power Putin, has to believe in his heart of hearts that he cannot take aggressive measures toward NATO countries because Trump and the other leaders would stand up to him.”

Well that ship has sailed.

CBS News:

President Donald Trump lashed out at former CIA Director John Brennan after Brennan criticized Mr. Trump for remarks he made during a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I think Brennan is a very bad guy, and if you look at it, a lot of things happened under his watch,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in Helsinki on Monday. “I think he’s a very bad person.”

The traitor tweets:

So many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki. Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match. Big results will come!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2018

While the NATO meeting in Brussels was an acknowledged triumph, with billions of dollars more being put up by member countries at a faster pace, the meeting with Russia may prove to be, in the long run, an even greater success. Many positive things will come out of that meeting..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2018

….Russia has agreed to help with North Korea, where relationships with us are very good and the process is moving along. There is no rush, the sanctions remain! Big benefits and exciting future for North Korea at end of process!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2018

Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2018

The slope gets steeper every day.

They’re smoothing the way for Putin.

The White House eliminated the position of cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security Council on Tuesday [last week], doing away with a post central to developing policy to defend against increasingly sophisticated digital attacks and the use of offensive cyber weapons.

A memorandum circulated by an aide to the new national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the post was no longer considered necessary because lower-level officials had already made cybersecurity issues a “core function” of the president’s national security team.

Cybersecurity experts and members of Congress said they were mystified by the move, though some suggested Mr. Bolton did not want any competitive power centers emerging inside the national security apparatus.

Yes sure that’s all it is, a power play by Bolton. Nothing to see here, don’t worry.

It is unclear how those issues will now be managed in the White House. Mr. Bolton has virtually no cyber-related experience. When he was last in government, as ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, cybersecurity was not formally considered a national threat. It is now listed as the No. 1 threat in the annual assessment that the director of national intelligence sends to Congress.

Mr. Bolton has talked about “streamlining” the N.S.C., and so far that appears to have involved reducing many of the new positions created over the past decade.

Let’s have less security now.

The elimination of the cybersecurity role is likely to increase concern that the Trump administration is short-handed and unprepared to deal with increasing cybersecurity threats. The White House still has not presented a coherent plan to protect election systems in advance of the fall midterm elections.

Russian hackers are believed to have penetrated election computers in a number of states, though there is no evidence that vote counts were changed. And authorities say hackers with Kremlin ties engaged in a wide-ranging campaign to attack the computer systems of Democratic officials and spread misinformation on social media before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Security experts are also worried that hackers operating out of Iran or Russia could renew their efforts to penetrate computer systems in the United States, including machines that operate critical infrastructure like the electric power grid.

But other than that it’s no big deal.

Oh honestly.

If he had said this in 2016, we might have been living in a different world today. https://t.co/UXRJeJWCC2

— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@CathyYoung63) July 17, 2018

Talk about tribalism, or groupthink, or living in a bubble, or whatever you want to call it. It takes some heavy duty ignorance of Obama not to realize that he has been saying this pretty much his whole life. It’s his theme. He annoyed colleagues at the Harvard Law Review when he was editor because he kept seeking out conservative contributions. It’s actually quite likely we’d be better off now if he’d been more of a street fighter for team slightly-left, but whether that’s true or not it’s absurd to claim he hasn’t urged listening to a wide range of opinion until just now.