I’ve been meaning to share passages from the ruling on the travel ban.

It is undisputed that the Executive Order does not facially discriminate for or
against any particular religion, or for or against religion versus non-religion. There
is no express reference, for instance, to any religion nor does the Executive
Order—unlike its predecessor—contain any term or phrase that can be reasonably
characterized as having a religious origin or connotation.
Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of
its religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior
Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order]
applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t.
Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the
Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six
countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations,
and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension
covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim
individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.
The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one
can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at
once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at
*9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus
because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,”
because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause
jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that
matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally
flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam
because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed,
using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six
countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to
99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting
these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to
conclude, as the Government does, that it does not.

“It would be no paradigmatic leap” – I like that.

The Government compounds these shortcomings by suggesting that the
Executive Order’s neutral text is what this Court must rely on to evaluate purpose.
Govt. Mem. in Opp’n at 42–43 (“[C]ourts may not ‘look behind the exercise of
[Executive] discretion’ taken ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.’”). Only a few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit commanded otherwise: “It is
well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may
be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.”
Washington, 847 F.3d at 1167–68 (citing Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v.
City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“Official action that targets religious
conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the
requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254–55 (holding that a
facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative
history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); and
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266–68
(1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical
background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in
evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory
purpose)). The Supreme Court has been even more emphatic: courts may not “turn
a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.”

I like that even more. Courts may not turn a blind eye to the context in which a policy arose.

“[H]istorical context and ‘the specific sequence of events leading up to’” the adoption of a challenged policy are relevant considerations. Id. at 862; see
also Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *7.
A review of the historical background here makes plain why the Government
wishes to focus on the Executive Order’s text, rather than its context. The record
before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of
religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related
predecessor. For example—
In March 2016, Mr. Trump said, during an interview, “I think
Islam hates us.” Mr. Trump was asked, “Is there a war between
the West and radical Islam, or between the West and Islam
itself?” He replied: “It’s very hard to separate. Because you
don’t know who’s who.”
SAC ¶ 41 (citing Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees: Exclusive Interview With Donald
Trump (CNN television broadcast Mar. 9, 2016, 8:00 PM ET), transcript available
at https://goo.gl/y7s2kQ)). In that same interview, Mr. Trump stated: “But there’s
a tremendous hatred. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be very
careful. And we can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred
of the United States. . . [a]nd of people that are not Muslim.”

Talking like that helped get him elected but it’s not helping him now.

The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts
should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government
decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart
of hearts.” Govt. Opp’n at 40 (citing McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862). The
Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press
release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States.[]” SAC ¶ 38, Ex. 6 (Press Release, Donald J. Trump for
President, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7,
2015), available at https://goo.gl/D3OdJJ)). Nor is there anything “secret” about
the Executive’s motive specific to the issuance of the Executive Order:
Rudolph Giuliani explained on television how the Executive
Order came to be. He said: “When [Mr. Trump] first announced
it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a
commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

SAC ¶ 59, Ex. 8. On February 21, 2017, commenting on the then-upcoming
revision to the Executive Order, the President’s Senior Adviser, Stephen Miller,
stated, “Fundamentally, [despite “technical” revisions meant to address the Ninth
Circuit’s concerns in Washington,] you’re still going to have the same basic policy
outcome [as the first].” SAC ¶ 74.
These plainly-worded statements,14 made in the months leading up to and
contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose. Any
reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the
instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at
the very least, “secondary to a religious objective” of temporarily suspending the
entry of Muslims. See McCreary, 545 U.S. at 864.

It’s a good read.

The Guardian’s take on Trump’s adventure in libeling a former president and pissing off a current ally.

The extraordinary public rebuke by the United States’ closest surveillance partner has revealed an emerging characteristic of Donald Trump’s White House: a willingness to antagonize even its allies instead of admitting error.

…

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, credulously repeated on Thursday an account by a Fox News pundit, Andrew Napolitano, that GCHQ laundered surveillance on Trump at the behest of Barack Obama. Napolitano, who is in no position to actually know, made the allegation apparently to explain away the mounting evidence, even from senior Republicans on the intelligence committees, that there is no basis to Trump’s claim that Obama ordered that surveillance.

Beautiful, isn’t it? They tell one lie, which results in a lot of people saying wo hey that’s not true, so in response they tell more lies in the hopes of “explaining away” the evidence of the first lie. I don’t see what could possibly go wrong with that.

The context matters here. Spicer repeated Napolitano’s allegation for the same reason Napolitano made it: to defend Trump’s evidence-free assertion, on 4 March, that Obama had Trump’s team placed under surveillance.

Spicer did so while reading off a long list of news reports, both credible and not, about aspects of surveillance intercepts related to Trump and Russia. Spicer’s implication is that if Trump was wrong – which he did not concede – it was because the journalists calling attention to Trump’s error lack credibility. Not a single credible news account Spicer read supports Trump’s 4 March claim. Napolitano’s did.

The credible ones don’t; Napolitano’s did.

One option always available to the White House is to forthrightly concede Trump was wrong. It has shown no appetite for that. Instead, Trump and his allies have grasped for whatever explanation might keep alive an incendiary accusation – one that is itself an unforced error – without regard for the relationships those explanations damage.

Even now, with GCHQ and 10 Downing Street angry, the White House is stopping short of an apology. “Ambassador Kim Darroch and Sir Mark Lyall expressed their concerns to Sean Spicer and General McMaster. Mr Spicer and General McMaster explained that Mr Spicer was simply pointing to public reports, not endorsing any specific story,” according to the current White House line.

The White House has been here before. Mexico’s president cancelled a state visit after Trump kept claiming Mexico would pay for a border wall. Trump invented an attack in Sweden in order to bolster his dubious claim that refugees are incipient terrorists. He antagonized another Five Eyes ally, Australia, over refugee policy as well.

He’s a chronic liar and a crook. Hug yourself, Putin, you hit the jackpot.

They did what now?

The White House has tried to soothe an angry Britain after suggesting that President Barack Obama used London’s spy agency to conduct secret surveillance on President Trump while he was a candidate last year but offered no public apology on Friday.

They WHAT?

The reassurances came after British officials complained to Trump administration officials. Kim Darroch, the British ambassador to Washington, spoke with Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, at a St. Patrick’s Day reception in Washington on Thursday night just hours after Mr. Spicer aired the assertion at his daily briefing. Mark Lyall Grant, the prime minister’s national security adviser, spoke separately with his American counterpart, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

“Ambassador Kim Darroch and Sir Mark Lyall expressed their concerns to Sean Spicer and General McMaster,” a White House official said on condition of anonymity to confirm private conversations. “Mr. Spicer and General McMaster explained that Mr. Spicer was simply pointing to public reports, not endorsing any specific story.”

Other White House officials, who also would not be named, said Mr. Spicer offered no regret to the ambassador. “He didn’t apologize, no way, no how,” said a senior West Wing official. The officials said they did not know whether General McMaster had apologized.

So they’re proud of it. They’re proud that Spicer insinuated that Britain helped US spooks spy on Trump, and that he refused to apologize for doing so. Make America Great, baby. Shed all those pesky allies.

The flap with Britain started when Mr. Spicer, in the course of defending Mr. Trump’s original accusation against Mr. Obama, on Thursday read from the White House lectern comments by a Fox News commentator asserting that the British spy agency was involved. Andrew Napolitano, the commentator, said on air that Mr. Obama had used Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the signals agency known as the GCHQ, to spy on Mr. Trump.

And this happened because Spicer was trying to convince a room full of reporters that Trump had good reasons to scream on Twitter that Obama had wiretapped him – because He Saw It On The Fox Channel. Spicer was trying to convince reporters, of all people, that commentary on Fox News is good evidence, or at least a reliable enough source that it justifies screaming on Twitter that Obama committed felonies. If anyone knows what commentary on Fox is worth, it’s reporters.

The GCHQ quickly and vehemently denied the contention on Thursday in a rare statement issued by the spy agency, calling the assertions “nonsense” and “utterly ridiculous.” By Friday morning, Mr. Spicer’s briefing had turned into a full-blown international incident. British politicians expressed outrage and demanded apologies and retractions from the American government.

Mr. Trump’s critics assailed the White House for alienating America’s friend.

The cost of falsely blaming our closest ally for something this consequential cannot be overstated. And from the PODIUM. https://t.co/lJ1Q1GR3lB

— Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) March 17, 2017

Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor to Obama.

In pointing the finger at Britain on Thursday, Mr. Spicer read from comments made by Mr. Napolitano on Fox this week. “Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command,” Mr. Spicer read. “He didn’t use the N.S.A., he didn’t use the C.I.A., he didn’t use the F.B.I., and he didn’t use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ.”

“What is that?” Mr. Spicer continued. “It’s the initials for the British intelligence spying agency. So simply, by having two people saying to them, ‘the president needs transcripts of conversations involved in candidate Trump’s conversations involving President-elect Trump,’ he was able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

And this, not surprisingly, caused outrage in the UK.

British officials and analysts were surprised at the tough and vehement language in the GCHQ response, especially from an agency that traditionally refuses to comment on any intelligence matter.

There was some annoyance and eye-rolling as well. Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, the junior partner in the last British coalition government, described Mr. Spicer’s repetition of the claims as “shameful” and said Mr. Trump was “compromising the vital U.K.-U.S. security relationship to try to cover his own embarrassment.”

It’s so Trump. He does something stupid and malevolent, so then he and his stooges do more stupid and malevolent things in their effort to force everyone to stop objecting to the first one. We can count on seeing a lot more of this sequence unless he’s removed soon.

British officials said that Britain initiated calls of complaint and denial to the White House after Mr. Spicer’s briefing. They also said that British officials had discussed responding earlier, after Mr. Napolitano’s comments were made on air, but acted quickly after those remarks were repeated by the president’s official spokesman.

“I doubt if there will be any long-term damage — the intelligence links between the U.S. and the U.K. are just too strong,” said Peter Westmacott, a former British ambassador to the United States. “It was unfortunate that the White House spokesman repeated what he’s heard on Fox News without checking the facts. But once he’d done so, GCHQ had no choice but to set the record straight.”

Their incompetence is appalling.

Science. Trump don’t want no stinkin science. Trump wants JOBS, not science. Science never created any jobs for anybody. Hell no, it’s selling overpriced condos that creates jobs. Somebody has to paint all those faucets gold-color.

The scientists of course are having a big hissy fit. They’re such prima donnas.

[T]he extent of the cuts in the proposed budget unveiled early Thursday shocked scientists, researchers and program administrators. The reductions include $5.8 billion, or 18 percent, from the National Institutes of Health, which funds thousands of researchers working on cancer and other diseases, and $900 million, or a little less than 20 percent, from the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which funds the national laboratories, considered among the crown jewels of basic research in the world.

Yes but what good is it? We can see how useful overpriced condos are, but we can’t see what good scientific research is.

The White House is also proposing to eliminate climate science programs throughout the federal government, including at the Environmental Protection Agency.

“As to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward: We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said at a White House briefing on Thursday. “We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that.”

Right. It’s way less wasteful to just let climate change go ahead.

While the budget is only a blueprint and is sure to face strong opposition from members of both parties in Congress — many lawmakers have already said that certain cuts, like those to the N.I.H., are nonstarters — policy makers expressed concern about what the proposal says about the administration’s commitment to science.

“Do they not think that there are advances to be made, improvements to be made, in the human condition?” said Rush D. Holt, a physicist and the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “The record of scientific research is so good, for so many years — who would want to sell it short? What are they thinking?”

They work for Trump, so they’re probably not thinking at all.

Eliminating laboratory research on climate change, as the budget proposes, can have real-world effects, experts said, by making it harder to predict storms or other weather events that cause devastation and loss of life.

“Cutting scientific research in E.P.A. and NASA and NOAA and other science agencies is not going to help us have more information on the causes and, more important, the effects of climate change,” said Vicki Arroyo, the executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center and a former E.P.A. official.

The budget also calls for eliminating some programs that help bridge the divide between basic research and commercialization. Among the most prominent of these is the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, known as ARPA-E, the Energy Department office that funds research in innovative energy technologies with a goal of getting products to market. Its annual appropriation of about $300 million would be eliminated.

James J. Greenberger, the executive director of NAATBatt International, a trade group for the advanced battery industry, said ARPA-E had been of enormous benefit to the industry.

“We’re absolutely stunned by it,” Mr. Greenberger said of the agency’s potential elimination, which he announced to industry leaders gathered at his group’s annual conference in Arizona. “I don’t know what’s going through the administration’s head. It’s almost surreal.”

See above. They work for Trump, so these are not thoughtful or scrupulous people.

Trump’s budget proposals are what you’d expect from a loathsome human being like him.

If Americans were taken aback by the restrained, highly scripted President Trump that addressed Congress last month, they should recognize a lot more of the blustery, law-and-order candidate they elected in the budget blueprint the White House released on Thursday.

“If he said it on the campaign, it’s in the budget,” the president’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters in a Wednesday briefing previewing the proposal’s release.

That means more money—some $54 billion in extra defense spending—for the military generals Trump loves to quote so much, and a lot less for the diplomatic niceties and programs combatting climate change that he so often dismissed. The State Department sees a 28 percent cut in the administration’s budget request, with a chunk of it coming from foreign aid. “It is not a soft-power budget,” Mulvaney explained. “This is a hard-power budget, and that was done intentionally. The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and to our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration.”

That’s a prettified way of saying Trump wants to send a message to everyone that he believes in force and force alone. That’s a useful stance to take, in international relations and in life. Don’t ask, just grab them by the pussy. Don’t be bashful, tell malicious lies about people on Twitter. Don’t give reasons, just keep repeating your assertions. Don’t answer reporters’ questions, insult them instead. Don’t mess around with diplomacy and foreign aid, just bomb the shit out of everyone.

The Trump administration wants to eliminate federal funding of 19 agencies and commissions, including the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, the Legal Services Corporation, the Institute of Peace, and an interagency council on homelessness. Some of those have long been targets of conservatives in Congress, but Democrats are expected to fight aggressively for their preservation, and it’s likely they retain majority support to continue.

Beyond the programs targeted for elimination, the Trump budget puts nearly every domestic Cabinet department on the chopping block. In the Department of Education, dozens of school and teacher grant programs would go, and the popular college work-study program would see significant cuts. In the Department of Commerce, NOAA gets slashed by billions, including the complete elimination of $250 million in grants for coastal and marine management. Funding for the National Institutes of Health—an agency with some of the most bipartisan support in Congress—would drop by nearly $6 billion, a cut [of] 18 percent.

The pundits say lots of this won’t fly, but of course Donnie is (according to him) a genius negotiator, so no doubt what does fly will be bad enough.

Congressional intelligence people to Trump: we don’t believe you.

The Republican and Democrat leading the Senate investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election appeared on Thursday to counter White House claims that there may have been surveillance of some sort on Trump Tower around the campaign, even if there was not specific wiretapping as President Trump said in a tweet nearly two weeks ago.

“Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said in a joint statement on Thursday.

Spicey is trying to spin that as “We haven’t found anything yet but that doesn’t mean we won’t!!”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said on Wednesday he doesn’t believe “there was an actual tap of Trump Tower,” but the statement from the Senate intelligence leaders represents broader pushback.

Asked to weigh in on wiretapping on Thursday, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “We’ve cleared that up. That — that we’ve seen no evidence of that.”

Trump has not produced any evidence to back his assertion. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said this week that, “I think there is significant reporting about surveillance techniques that have existed throughout the 2016 election.” “I think he feels very confident that what will ultimately come of this will vindicate him,” Spicer said, referring to the president.

Of course he feels confident, but that’s because he’s a fucking fool, not because he has good reasons.

Chris Cillizza at the Post has the whole transcript of PP’s conversation with Tucker Carlson yesterday.

The Twitter section is worth reading carefully.

CARLSON: So on March 4, 6:35 in the morning, you’re down in Florida, and you tweet, the former administration wiretapped me, surveilled me, at Trump Tower during the last election. How did you find out? You said, I just found out. How did you learn that?

TRUMP: Well, I’ve been reading about things. I read in, I think it was January 20 a “New York Times” article where they were talking about wiretapping. There was an article, I think they used that exact term. I read other things. I watched your friend Bret Baier the day previous where he was talking about certain very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping. I said, wait a minute, there’s a lot of wiretapping being talked about. I’ve been seeing a lot of things.

Now, for the most part, I’m not going to discuss it, because we have it before the committee and we will be submitting things before the committee very soon that hasn’t been submitted as of yet. But it’s potentially a very serious situation.

CARLSON: So, 51,000 people retweeted that. So a lot of people thought that was plausible, they believe you, you’re the President — you’re in charge of the agencies. Every intelligence agency reports to you. Why not immediately go to them and gather evidence to support that?

TRUMP:  Because I don’t want to do anything that’s going to violate any strength of an agency.  We have enough problems.

And by the way, with the CIA, I just want people to know, the CIA was hacked, and a lot of things taken — that was during the Obama years.  That was not during us.  That was during the Obama situation.  Mike Pompeo is there now doing a fantastic job.

But, we will be submitting certain things and I will be perhaps speaking about this next week, but it’s right now before the committee, and I think I want to leave it.  I have a lot of confidence in the committee.

CARLSON:  Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it?  Don’t you devalue your words when you can’t provide evidence?

TRUMP:  Well, because “The New York Times” wrote about it.  Not that I respect “The New York Times”.  I call it the failing “New York Times”.  But they did write on January 20 using the word wiretap.  Other people have come out with —

CARLSON:  Right, but you’re the President.  You have the ability to gather all the evidence you want.

TRUMP:  I do.  I do.  But I think that frankly we have a lot right now.  And I think if you watch — if you watched the Bret Baier and what he was saying and what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word wiretap, you would feel very confident that you could mention the name.  He mentioned it.  And other people have mentioned it.  But if you take a look at some of the things written about wiretapping and eavesdropping —

And don’t forget, when I say wiretapping, those words were in quotes.  That really covers, because wiretapping is pretty old fashioned stuff.  But that really covers surveillance and many other things.  And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that’s a very important thing.

But wiretap covers a lot of different things.  I think you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.

CARLSON:  Do you talk to anyone before you tweet?  And is there anyone in the White House who can say to you, Mr. President, please don’t tweet that, who you would listen to?

TRUMP:  Well, let me tell you about Twitter.  I think that maybe I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Twitter, because I get such a fake press, such a dishonest press.  I mean, if you look at — and I’m not including Fox, because I think Fox has been fair to me, but if you look at CNN and if you look at these other networks, NBC — I made a fortune for NBC with “The Apprentice”.  I had a top show where they were doing horribly, and I had one of the most successful reality shows of all time.  I made — and I was on 14 seasons.  And you see what happened when I’m not on.  You saw what happened to the show was a disaster.  I was on — I was very good to NBC, and I — they are despicable.  They’re despicable in their coverage.

CBS, ABC, you take a look at what’s going on — I call it the fake press, the fake media.  It is a disgrace what’s happening.  So, let me just tell you —

CARLSON:  But then they say to you, but you’re — I mean, as you know, the response — look, so you had this big speech to the joint session on Tuesday.  You had great press all week, bipartisan, and then you let off this tweet, and immediately, people say —

TRUMP:  No, it wasn’t that tweet.  They had other things —

CARLSON:  You can’t back up what you say.

TRUMP:  Excuse me.  I had a very successful night.  Joint session, it was very successful.  I got reviews even from people that I would never think I was going to get good reviews.  I got great reviews. And then all of a sudden they came up with a new dialogue in order to kill that.  So that speech was hot for about two or three hours after the speech was made, because they came up with other things, having to do with other people, that they shouldn’t have been able to do and they shouldn’t have done, but they did it.  And you know exactly what I’m talking about.

So the news is not honest.  Much of the news.  It’s not honest.  And when I have close to 100 million people watching me on Twitter, including Facebook, including all of the Instagram, including POTUS, including lots of things — but we have — I guess pretty close to 100 million people.  I have my own form of media.  So if I tweet two or three or four or five times a day, and if most of them are good — and I really want them all to be good — but if I make one mistake in a month — this one, I don’t think is going to prove to be a mistake at all.

CARLSON:  Do you think it’s OK to make — the counterargument, even from people who support you, who say look, I support Donald Trump, I believe what he believes, and I want him to succeed badly, but if the President says something that cannot be proved or is demonstrably untrue, he devalues his own currency.

TRUMP:  Let’s see whether or not I proved it.  You looked at some proof.  I mean, let’s see whether or not I prove it.  I just don’t choose to do it right now.  I choose to do it before the committee, and maybe I’ll do it before the committee.  Maybe I’ll do it before I see the result of the committee.  But I think we have some very good stuff.  And we’re in the process of putting it together, and I think it’s going to be very demonstrative.  But just on Twitter, if I don’t do that, I won’t get my word out.  Because when I tell — when I say things, the press doesn’t cover it accurately.  They cover it very inaccurately.  Much of the press.

Some of the press — by the way, some of the finest people I know are reporters.  Reporters are wonderful.  I’m talking about the fake media, the fake news.  And there’s a lot of fake news.  So if I’m not going to — if they’re not going to do me the honor and the public the honor of spreading my word accurately as it was meant, and you know exactly what I’m talking about, because there’s been nobody in history that got more dishonest media than I’ve gotten.  You look at some of the stories in “The New York Times”.  You look at some of the stories in “The Washington Post”.  Take a look at what’s going on with CBS and NBC in particular and ABC — take a look at CNN.  It’s a complete hit job.  No matter what you do, no matter how good — no matter how great it is, they don’t report it in a positive fashion.

So, when I can reach, whether it’s 90 million or 100 million or 80 million, however many people it may turn out to be, when you add everything up — and then of course it gets disseminated from there, when I can reach that many people, Twitter is a wonderful thing for me, because I get the word out.

CARLSON:  Does it ever go through any kind of mediator —

TRUMP:  Sure it does.  Sure.  Sometimes I’ll —

CARLSON:  Do you show your staff and —

TRUMP:  Sometimes I’ll have something and I’ll say, what do you think about this?  A lot of times, my staff comes to me and they say, could you do a tweet on this or that?  Because it’s not being shown correctly.  I mean, they’ll come to me a lot and they’ll say, could you do — I probably wouldn’t be here — I’m not talking about Twitter, because it’s really Twitter, Facebook, and lots of other things, OK.  But I might not be here talking to you right now as President if I didn’t have an honest way of getting the word out. 

Even Republicans in Congress, even Devin Nunes, don’t like it when Trump tells libelous lies on Twitter and then puts it all on Congress to deal with.

Late Monday, a spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) threatened to subpoena the Trump administration to produce evidence of Trump’s claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House has declined to produce this evidence publicly, offering various excuses, including the Constitution’s separation of powers and — most recently on Monday — arguing that Trump wasn’t speaking literally when he made the claim.

The Justice Department missed Nunes’s deadline to provide evidence Monday, which drew Nunes’s subpoena threat.

“If the committee does not receive a response, the committee will ask for this information during the March 20 hearing and may resort to a compulsory process if our questions continue to go unanswered,” Nunes spokesman Jack Langer said.

Aw, when they were such great friends, too.

Then, on Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) made his own threat. Last week, Graham — who is clearly skeptical of the wiretapping claim and chairs a subcommittee looking into it — asked the Justice Department and the FBI to provide copies of any warrants or court orders related to the alleged wiretapping. Having not received anything, Graham said he may push for a special committee.

“They’re about to screw up big time if they keep running to the intel committee and not answer that letter,” Graham said, according to CBS’s Alan He. He added: “If they don’t honor this request and give us an answer, then I would say that we need a joint select committee because regular order is not working.”

But he’s the Big Boss. He doesn’t have to pay attention to what little underlings say. Does he?

It’s clear as day what’s going on here.

The White House’s reactions to Trump’s evidence-free claims — be it this one or the one about millions of illegal votes in 2016 — is to call for investigations. That has the triple benefit of putting the onus on someone else to look into it, to buy some time and hope people forget that the president is making such wild allegations, and, in this case, to give themselves an excuse to clam up. The White House initially said it wouldn’t comment on Trump’s wiretapping claim while it was being investigated and then it said it couldn’t provide evidence because of separation of powers — another claim that strained credulity.

But that also puts Republicans such as Nunes and Graham in the position of having to account for these claims…

And guess what: they don’t wanna.

Poor Donnie. His malevolent racist hatemongering is what got him elected, but now it’s what’s preventing him from keeping the brown people out.

Rarely do a presidential candidate’s own words so dramatically haunt his presidency.

For the second time in two months, a federal judge on Wednesday refused to allow President Trump to impose a travel ban, citing his campaign rhetoric as evidence of an improper desire to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.

The judge’s stunning rebuke was a vivid example of how Mr. Trump’s angry, often xenophobic rallying cries during the 2016 campaign — which were so effective in helping to get him elected — have become legal and political liabilities now that he is in the Oval Office.

Now about those conflicts of interest…

[T]he decision by the Hawaii judge to block even that narrower ban raises new questions about the administration’s legal acumen and undercuts its political strategy of seeking to move quickly to make good on the president’s promises.

Enraged, Mr. Trump lashed out during a rally in Nashville on Wednesday, accusing the judge of ruling against him for political reasons and lamenting that the decision “makes us look weak.”

I think he might be getting even worse.

He was babbling on Fox News yesterday and it seems more empty and fatuous than ever. The Post has the few threadbare words:

“I’ve been reading about things,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel. Trump said that after noticing an article in the New York Times and commentary by Fox anchor Bret Baier, Trump said he told himself, “Wait a minute, there’s a lot of wiretapping being talked about.’”

“I’ve been reading about things.” That was in response to Tucker Carlson’s question about where he was getting his fixed idea that Obama wiretapped him. “I’ve been reading about things.”

In the interview Wednesday with Fox host Tucker Carlson, Trump maintained that information would soon be revealed that could prove him right, but he would not explain what that information might be. He said he would be “submitting certain things” to a congressional committee investigating the matter and that he was considering speaking about the topic next week.

“I think you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks,” Trump said.

Things. Items. “Coming to the forefront” in a wild stab at trying to sound less like a toddler.

Carlson pointed out that, as president, Trump had the ability to “gather all the evidence you want.” Trump acknowledged, “I do,” but proceeded to explain that he fired off his tweets because he had seen Baier use the word “wiretap” on his broadcast a day earlier.

“What he was saying and what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word ‘wiretap,’ you would feel very confident that you could mention the name,” Trump said. “He mentioned it. And other people have mentioned it.”

See what I mean? That’s not even an adult, let alone a head of state.

Asked whether he “devalues his own currency” by tweeting things that are not true, Trump defended himself.

“Let’s see whether or not I proved it,” Trump said. “You looked at some proof. I mean, let’s see whether or not I prove it. I just don’t choose to do it right now. … I think we have some very good stuff, and we’re in the process of putting it together, and I think it’s going to be very demonstrative.”

That’s not what “demonstrative” means.

“Don’t forget, when I say ‘wiretapping,’ those words were in quotes,” Trump told Carlson. “That really covers, because wiretapping is pretty old-fashioned stuff. But that really covers surveillance and many other things. And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that’s a very important thing.”

He’s shedding vocabulary at a rapid rate. That’s not a good sign.

Trump’s rally in Nashville tonight – how I hope it’s ruined for him by the ruling on his travel ban – is a chance for him to learn a little about Andrew Jackson. One could wish he’d done some of that learning before he decided to run for president.

Trump is coming to town to celebrate the 250th birthday of Andrew Jackson, the controversial seventh president who embraced populism and has been compared to the current president.

The Hermitage — as Jackson’s mansion is called — has shut down for the day and canceled plans for an event that was expected to attract thousands of visitors. Trump plans to visit late in the afternoon, lay a wreath on Jackson’s tomb, take a tour and learn more about Jackson.

I think he should learn more before laying any wreath, not after. He should learn more and realize Jackson doesn’t merit any wreaths.

Although a portrait of Jackson now hangs in the Oval Office, Trump’s comments on the former president have been vague at best. During a town hall in April, Trump said that “Andrew Jackson had a great history.” While giving the hosts of “Fox & Friends” a tour of the Oval Office late last month, Trump explained why he selected the portrait of Jackson: “They say that his campaign and his whole thing was most like mine. That was interesting. … That’s the great Andrew Jackson, who actually was a great general, and he was a great president — but a controversial president.”

Martin Luther King was a great guy who did wonderful things, and so was Jackson. Give this man an A for the course.

Jackson, the son of Irish immigrants, was considered “the people’s president,” and he approached the presidency in a dramatically different way than presidents before him, acting on his own beliefs and using the full power of the office to take swift action. He cracked down on corruption, replaced many federal officials and paid off the national debt. Jackson also forced Native American nations to move west of the Mississippi River, a ruthless relocation that became known as the “Trail of Tears.” For this reason, along with Jackson’s support of slavery, the administration of former president Barack Obama called for Jackson to be removed from the $20 bill, a decision that Trump at the time called “pure political correctness.”

Yeah right. How dare we not want to honor a guy like that.

Meanwhile, Trump is busy being his usual vomitous racist self.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/842154802058543105

Speak for yourself, Trump. We don’t thank Jackson for his service. We don’t honor his memory. We don’t build on his legacy. And we do not thank god for the US.

Breaking:

A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a political blow to the White House and signaling that proponents of the ban face a long and risky legal battle ahead.

The ruling was the second frustrating defeat for Mr. Trump’s travel ban, after a federal court in Seattle halted an earlier version of the executive order last month. Mr. Trump responded to that setback with fury, lashing out at the judiciary before ultimately abandoning the order.

Well, frustrating for Trump and his poisonous cronies, but not for anyone else.

The new improved ban was supposed to avoid legal challenges, but oops no that didn’t work out.

Democratic states and nonprofit groups that work with immigrants and refugees raced into court to attack the updated order, alleging that it was a thinly veiled version of the ban on Muslim migration that he had pledged to enact last year, as a presidential candidate.

Administration lawyers argued in multiple courts on Wednesday that the president was merely exercising his national security powers and that no element of the executive order, as written, could be construed as a religious test for travelers.

But in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin, Judge Derrick K. Watson appeared skeptical of the government’s claim that past comments by Mr. Trump and his allies had no bearing on the case.

“Are you saying we close our eyes to the sequence of statements before this?” Judge Watson asked in a hearing Wednesday before he ruled against the administration.

Ahhh that’s interesting. So it turns out that all those dogwhistles and outright racist rants came back to bite him. That’s justice.

The lawsuits have also claimed that the order disrupts the functions of companies, charities, public universities and hospitals that have deep relationships overseas. In the Hawaii case, nearly five dozen technology companies, including Airbnb, Dropbox, Lyft and TripAdvisor, joined in a brief objecting to the travel ban.

Capitalism has its moments.

The judge’s order was not a ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s ban, and the administration has consistently expressed confidence that courts will ultimately affirm Mr. Trump’s power to issue the restrictions.

But the legal debate is likely to be a protracted and unusually personal fight for the administration, touching Mr. Trump and a number of his key aides directly and raising the prospect that their public comments and private communications will be scrutinized extensively.

Multiple lawsuits challenging the travel ban have extensively cited Mr. Trump’s comments during the presidential campaign. He first proposed to bar all Muslims from entering the United States, and then offered an alternative plan to ban travel from a number of Muslim countries, which he described as a politically acceptable way of achieving the same goal.

The lawsuits also cited Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who advises Mr. Trump, who said he had been asked to help craft a Muslim ban that would pass legal muster.

And they highlighted comments by Stephen Miller, an adviser to the president, who cast the changes to Mr. Trump’s first travel ban as mere technical adjustments aimed at ushering the same policy past the review of a court.

I find this deeply satisfying. They’ve cut the ground out from under their own feet. They’ve botched their own plans by being such evil shits.

Bob Ferguson, the Washington attorney general, has indicated that in an extended legal fight, his office could seek depositions from administration officials and request documents that would expose the full process by which Trump aides crafted the ban.

Proud to be an immigrant to Washington state.

George Packer in the New Yorker a couple of weeks ago:

Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution allows for the removal of a President who can no longer discharge his duties but is unable or unwilling to say so. It empowers the Vice-President, along with “a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,” to declare the President unfit and to install the Vice-President as Acting President. Section 4 has never been invoked. In 1987, when Ronald Reagan appointed Howard Baker to be his new chief of staff, the members of the outgoing chief’s team warned their replacements that Reagan’s mental ineptitude might require them to attempt the removal of the President under Section 4. Baker and his staff, at their first official meeting with Reagan, watched him carefully for signs of incapacity—but the President, apparently cheered by the arrival of newcomers, was alert and lively, and he served out the rest of his second term.

Yiiiiiiiiikes I didn’t know that.

Trump is “alert and lively” – but he’s “alert” to wrong things and he’s lively in wrong and terrible ways. Apathy and lassitude are not the only forms of mental incapacity.

As Packer goes on to say:

After a month in office, Donald Trump has already proved himself unable to discharge his duties. The disability isn’t laziness or inattention. It expresses itself in paranoid rants, non-stop feuds carried out in public, and impulsive acts that can only damage his government and himself. Last week, at a White House press conference, the President behaved like the unhinged leader of an unstable and barely democratic republic. He rambled for nearly an hour and a half, on script and off; he flung insults at reporters; he announced that he was having fun; and he congratulated himself so many times and in such preposterous terms (“this Administration is running like a fine-tuned machine”) that the White House press corps could only stare in amazement.

He’s slightly manic most of the time. In someone with the faults and deficits he has, that’s not a plus.

It won’t get better. The notion that, at some point, Trump would start behaving “Presidential” was always a fantasy that has the truth backward: the pressure of the Presidency is making him worse. He’s insulated by sycophants and by family members, and he can still ride a long way on his popular following. Though the surge of civic opposition, the independence of the courts, and the reinvigoration of the press are heartening, the only real leverage over Trump lies in the hands of Republicans. But Section 4 won’t be invoked. Vice-President Mike Pence is not going to face the truth in the private back room of a Washington restaurant with Secretaries Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, and Wilbur Ross, or in the offices of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republican leaders have opted instead for unconstrained power.

It’s their big chance to destroy the environment, make poor people even poorer, make sure health insurance will never be universal and tax-funded, make it harder for minorities to vote, and end public funding of arts and humanities endowments.

One of the things Rachel Maddow talked about in the segment leading up to the 1040 reveal was the fact that Trump sold a house to a Russian oligarch for way more than it was worth, so what’s that about.

So today I googled for more, and got a Washington Post piece from five days ago.

The front-page centerpiece of Friday’s Palm Beach Post, billed as an “exclusive,” begins with a provocative question: “Why did a Russian oligarch pay now-President Donald Trump $95 million for his Palm Beach mansion?”

The piece offers no clear answer and, despite being a captivating read filled with several new details, it revisits a curious real estate transaction that has previously been probed by the New York Times, CNN and Politico, among others.

$95 million is a LOT of money for one house, even if it is a mansion.

Trump paid $41.35 million for the seaside estate in 2004 and sold it in 2008 for $95 million to Dmitry Rybolovlev, a fertilizer magnate and majority owner of the AS Monaco soccer team.

There was a real estate bubble between 2004 and 2008…but it was deflating in 2008, and it was never so expanded that it could explain a profit of $43 $53 million in four years unless the seller added a few extra houses. $95 million was a record price and before that, the Post says, Trump was struggling to sell it at all.

(Maison de L’Amitie, as the estate is known, languished on the market for two years before fetching what was, at the time, believed to be the highest price ever for a home in the United States.) Rybolovlev, who has never lived in the 62,000-square-foot house, has claimed at various times that it is a corporate investment, an asset for his family trust or perhaps a 6.2-acre playground for his equestrian-loving daughter.

None of that is an explanation for paying a vastly inflated price.

Since Rybolovlev can’t get his story straight, and he keeps bumping into Trump at airports, is it possible that the answer to the Palm Beach Post’s question about the oligarch’s motive is that he was trying to curry favor with the future president?

If so, Rybolovlev had tremendous political foresight. An alternative explanation is that he was just moving money in the midst of a divorce from his wife, Elena, who in a 2009 lawsuit accused him of “secreting and transferring assets in order to avoid his obligations,” according to the Palm Beach Post.

That still doesn’t make any sense. If you overpay for a house in order to withhold the money from someone else, the money is still lost to you, because you overpaid. Why not buy art works, or multiple houses, or startups, or any number of things that wouldn’t be just donating $43 $53 million to Donnie from Queens?

Unless donating $43 $53 million to Donnie from Queens is exactly what you intended to do.

Today in TwitterDonnie:

Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, "went to his mailbox" and found my tax returns? @NBCNews FAKE NEWS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2017

Can you imagine what the outcry would be if @SnoopDogg, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2017

Wut?

Looking forward to a big rally in Nashville, Tennessee, tonight. Big crowd of great people expected. Will be fun!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2017

Ah yes, his favorite thing: adoring attention from a visible crowd of people. He misses the campaign. He would do that all day every day if he could.

It’s so healthy for the country, too, whipping up crowds of white people into frothing hatred of Other races and everyone on the left.

Someone leaked Trump’s 2005 tax return, minus all the informative attachments, yesterday. I think it was Trump who leaked it, since a hostile party would have included the informative attachments.

President Trump paid $38 million in federal taxes in 2005 on income of $153 million and reported a $105 million write-down in business losses, according to a copy of his tax return first revealed Tuesday night.

Trump paid an effective tax rate of 24 percent and saved millions of dollars in additional taxes by claiming the losses, according to the document, the first two pages of which were obtained by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston and first reported by DC Report, a nonprofit news site he runs, and on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

…

The document offers a rare snapshot of Trump’s personal finances, considering he has refused to disclose his tax returns to the public. The White House issued a statement chastising MSNBC for reporting on Trump’s taxes — “totally illegal,” read the statement — but also confirming top-line numbers from the return and defending Trump.

Still, Trump tweeted early Wednesday that the report was “FAKE NEWS” and asked: “Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, ‘went to his mailbox’ and found my tax returns?”

That’s so Trump. He’d never heard of the reporter, so he assumes that no one else has either. Pulitzer shmulitzer, am I right?

The newly revealed pages from his 2005 return do not detail his financial ties, but they do seem to disprove the theory that some Democrats advanced in last year’s campaign that Trump avoided paying any federal income taxes during that period.

That’s another reason I think he’s the one who leaked the page. (It’s one page really, one page with two sides.)

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s oldest son, tweeted, “Thank you Rachel Maddow for proving to your #Trump hating followers how successful @realDonaldTrump is& that he paid $40mm in taxes! #Taxes”

See? He leaked it himself. Another reason to think so: a new pretext for shouting at the press.