Monthly Archives: February 2017

Donald Trump’s Terrible Awful No Good Very Bad Day

National, Uncategorized, , , , ,

There have been many days that prompted bloggers to adapt the popular children’s book title to frame the immediate chaos around Donald Trump’s political misadventures; but today of all days seems to cry out more than most for that redundant banner headline.

Leaving aside the trail of stinking piles drying in his wake every day, today might one day be remembered as the day that his epic losing streak began.

This morning, like so many Americans (and as I have done every morning since the inauguration), I reflexively turned on the news even before the coffeemaker in order to find out what new region of Twitter hell Donald Trump had taken us to overnight. Despite his best efforts to gin up international tensions, nuclear war hadn’t yet broken out, so I settled into my kitchen chair with a sigh  and a steaming cup of relief. It was going to be a pretty good day after all.

Mr. Trump’s immediate national concern seemed to be his adult daughter’s broken heart at being told by Nordstrom that they could no longer carry her line of merchandise because sales had been so poor over the last quarter. Never one to underplay a family slight, Mr. Trump had tweeted how “unfair” Nordstrom’s decision was; that it obviously was politically motivated, and that his daughter is such a good person who is always trying to get him to do “the right thing.” Then, for good measure, he tweeted it again to the vast readership of his official @POTUS feed.

Even though, for some reason, this gross exercise of  conflict of interest doesn’t set him up for immediate consequences, it does add to the growing file of transgressions that may ultimately be his undoing. Furthermore, Nordstrom probably has a pretty good case for a lawsuit.

Apparently Ivanka hasn’t been very successful at getting Dear Ol’ Dad to do the “right thing”, either.

The new twist this morning was that shameless Trump sycophant and consigliere Kellyanne Conway had taken it upon herself to ‘right’ Nordstrom’s ‘wrong’ by appearing on Fox news to give impromptu commercial endorsement for the First Daughter’s products and exhort the faithful to go forth and buy Ivanka’s crap.

Like so many of Trump’s closest advisors, Kellyanne’s qualifications for the job must be seriously questioned. Supposedly she is a lawyer, and yet, she seemed to be totally unaware that what she was doing in hawking Trump family merchandise on TV represented an immediate and gross conflict of interests, a breach of White House ethics, and a set-up for worsening optics on the general issue of conflicts within the Trump administration.

It seemed that what Kelly Anne had crossed was an ethics bridge too far even for the Donald, because it wasn’t long before the word came out that counsellor Kelly Anne had herself been “counselled.” What exactly this means is unclear, but it seems to suggest some acceptance of responsibility was finally being broached within the administration, if only by a side flunky.

But we had to wait until evening for the best news, when the 9th Circuit Court Decision came down as a sweep in favor of the plaintiffs. A crushing defeat for King Donald!

It ain’t over ’til it’s over, and there are a few more innings to be played in the game of anti-American immigration policy; but tonight we can pause in the battle for a little celebration, knowing that it’ must be somebody’s job at the White House tonight to sit on Donald and restrain his little fingers from unleashing a Twitter storm of unintended consequences.

Updated: McAllister- “In Vermont, women are the ‘Holy Grail’”

local/regional, Uncategorized, , , ,

Update: (Feb. 6 )-  Friday, February 24 has been set as the date for continuation of the hearing on Mr. McAllister’s motion to reverse his plea deal.  Not only is Mr. McAllister likely to return to the stand for further testimony, but his son Heath may be called as well.   Popcorn optional.  ________________________________________________________________

On Friday, I took a break from the antics of our “Command-Her in Chief” to attend the courtroom speaking debut of Norm McAllister,  when he took the stand in defense  of his motion to rewind the plea deal he had earlier agreed to on the occasion of his second sex crime trial.

As you probably know, Mr. McAllister (formerly Franklin County Senator McAllister) took that plea deal last month after the court had devoted an entire day to seating a jury.

It seemed as if we were destined never to hear directly from the accused.

The plea deal should have been very attractive to Mr. McAllister, as it dropped some of the charges against him, thus reducing the maximum amount of jail time he would serve from life to seven years. Considering the weight of recorded evidence with which the prosecution was fully armed, no one was surprised that he seemed to accept the plea deal pretty willingly.

McAllister, 65, signed an agreement and pleaded no contest to two counts of prohibited acts and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct. In return, prosecutors agreed to drop the most serious felony, a charge of sexual assault, which carried a potential life sentence.

The very next morning Mr. McAllister surprised his own attorneys, and pretty much everyone else, by expressing ‘buyer’s remorse’ to NBC’s Stewart Ledbetter and suggesting he might retract his plea.

Friday’s hearing was scheduled to entertain arguments concerning the merit of McAllister’s request to retract.

His principle argument is that the attorneys who represented him, both in his earlier sexual assault trial and in the case for which he had taken the plea deal, had coerced him into accepting the deal. He has fired those attorneys (Brooks McArthur and David Williams), replacing them with his current representation (Bob Katims.)

Under oath, Mr. McAllister told the court that McArthur and Williams “brow beat” him into
accepting the plea deal; that they refused to let him consult with his son before making the decision; and that they had called him ‘stupid’ and ‘retarded’ for resisting and brought him to tears. He further asserted that they had told him that Vermont law was unfairly biased in favor of women, giving him the impression that he had no choice but to accept the deal right then and there.

He also maintained that the implications of the plea deal had never been properly explained to him and he had no idea that acceptance of the plea deal and the conditions of sex offender treatment attached to it was a tacit confession to the reduced charges.

It was quite a story. Once again, Mr. McAllister played the victim as he attempted to deflect blame to his lawyers .

Brooks McArthur, who was called to the stand after the break, refuted the idea that McAllister had been coerced, reading from the record to establish that Mr. McAllister had been questioned both by his attorneys and by Judge Martin Maley about his understanding and acceptance of the plea deal. He emphatically denied calling Mr. McAllister ‘retarded’ and making statements about gender bias in the Vermont court system, pointing to Mr. McAllister’s own assertion to Seven Days back in October 2015:

“…You’re screwed, because in this state, women are considered the Holy Grail,” McAllister told Seven Days. “Women don’t lie. I’ve had landlords come up to me and say, ‘You know, this is going to scare us, because if you rent to a single woman, you’ve got to have witnesses.’ There’s something wrong with our system. It’s great that nobody is above the law. But how does that work when you get accused of something you didn’t do? There’s a presumption that you must have because you’re a man.”

From Mr. McAllister’s testimony, it’s pretty easy to surmise that he was fully accepting of the plea deal while he was still in court; but, when he went home and was confronted by his son about the arrangement, he had a change of heart.

Day two of the hearing, in which Mr. Williams will be called upon to testify, has yet to be scheduled, but Mr. McAllister’s credibility has already been dealt a considerable blow. I don’t know about you, but I can’t see Mr. McAllister’s attorneys being so incautious as to call him “retarded” or opine that he couldn’t get a fair trial in Vermont because he is a man!

I am of two minds about whether or not I’d like to see Mr. McAllister’s plea deal reversed.

On the one hand, given Friday’s preview of his performance on the stand, I would sincerely love to hear him answer questions directly related to the charges against him. On the other, having witnessed how poorly the system served the young girl who was compelled to  relive humiliating details of her complaint in the first case, I do not wish this female victim any more exposure and pain than absolutely necessary in order to ensure that one sexual predator will never hurt another woman again.

Recent Trump poll: “…basically everything he’s doing is wrong.”

National, ,

Public Policy Polling has released the results of their most recent poll on the Donald Trump Presidency after his first 14 days. And it’s not good, some might say: It’s a total disaster! Sad!  Public Policy Polling summarizes that the reason is that: “voters think basically everything he’s doing is wrong.” Full results PDF here

whuhtrumpForty percent of voters would like to impeach him, and incredibly that number is up from 35% in just the past seven days.  Only 48% of voters say that they would be opposed to Trump’s impeachment.

On issues other than impeachment the numbers show: 52% of voters think that Trump’s executive order on immigration was intended to be a Muslim ban, to only 41% who don’t think that was the intent. And the idea of a Muslim ban is extremely unpopular with the American people- only 26% are in favor of it, to 65% who are against it.

Trump’s key advisor, and some say the brains of the gang, Steve Bannon, has very low approval with only 19% of voters seeing him favorably and a solid 40% with a negative opinion of him. The placing of Bannon on the National Security Council by Trump is not considered wise, even among Trump supporters. And 40% of those believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence belongs on the NSC more than Bannon.

If Trump is smart (an ongoing debate) and heeds poll results, he will back off attacks on the National Park Service. Smokey the Bear ResistsShortly after Trump’s Inauguration, an official at the National Park Service was reportedly blasted in a phone call from by President Trump himself. This after the Park Service had published images online of Donald’s embarrassingly small turnout on his big day.

PPP found 68% of voters have a favorable opinion of the National Park Service, to only 9% with an unfavorable opinion of it. Only 30% of voters approve of censoring the Park Service’s social media accounts, to 52% who disapprove of that. [Freedom loving] Trump voters do support censorship of Park Service social media accounts, 59% to 12%.

In other areas, Trump supporters seem to be truly in an alternative universe:huhpolling2Trump voters also continue to refuse to believe in the sincerity of those protesting him. 48% think the folks who protested at airports across the country last weekend were paid to do so by George Soros, to only 31% who think the protesters weren’t paid. Trump voters thought the women’s marchers were all paid by Mr. Soros as well so clearly the Trump administration is going to be very expensive for him.

So, if you attended any marches recently, keep an eye out for that Soros check in the mail. They probably get mailed right after Trump supporters get their Publisher’s Clearing House million dollar prizes. The ones Donald promised them.

Naval Special Warfare Group 2: Letting their freak flag fly

National,

Wow, here’s a creepy little news flash. Those who are inclined to see conspiracies should probably read no further.

A convoy of unmarked U.S. military vehicles flying a Trump flag was spotted (and videotaped) near Louisville Kentucky earlier this week. Defense officials, when first asked about the disturbing sight, said they believed the vehicles were military surplus.636213881632417527-trumptruck But now a U. S. Navy spokeswoman has admitted the vehicles, which were unmarked for security reasons belong to the Navy — yes, ours!

And this was not just some low-level band of sailors tooling around in jeeps with a Donald Trump flag on the antenna, but it was a multi-vehicle convoy of Naval Special Warfare Group 2 stationed in Virginia Beach, Virginia flying Trump’s “colors.” This Naval group is made up of the serious ones with the black balaclavas, Seal Teams. Seal Teams are specialists in unconventional warfare, direct actions, counter-terrorism, special reconnaissance and personnel recovery.

The Navy has now acknowledged this was inappropriate and unauthorized. However the spokeswoman was not sure of what penalties this violation might carry. An investigation into the violation of regulations was promised.

Military regulations say personnel should avoid implying Department of Defense sponsorship or endorsement of any “political candidate, campaign or cause.”

Some motorists said they were alarmed by military units flying the flag of a national leader rather than the country, which they said is reminiscent of a fascist government or banana republic.

I hope there are some follow-ups on this . But, just for grins here’s a little thought experiment for now: imagine the same story but replace the Naval Warfare Specialists’ Trump flag with an Obama flag. Got that picture?  Okay now imagine those headlines.

But I am so old I recall a fearful Texas Governor Abbot panicked and deployed the Texas National Guard over nothing more than foolish right-wing promoted rumors that Obama might be planning an invasion.No Obama flags were ever sighted in Texas -I wonder what scared them Texans so. obama

Question of the Day and a suggestion

National, , , ,

QOD4DsOkay, then here’s the question today for Democratic office holders: How many people supporting Democratic policies need to get out in the streets before you raise some hell against the GOP in Congress?

I read today that Rex Tillerson (R/ExxonMobil) will be gliding into his post as Trump’s Secretary of State. And that despite years of GOP procedural stalling in the Senate led by Mitch McConnell and a “stolen” supreme court seat that could have been Obama nominee Merrick Garland’s. President Trump’s cabinet of horror picks may eventually even have some Democratic support. Therefore my thinking is that the number of people needed in the streets for Democratic office holders to show some backbone may well exceed the hundreds of thousands that already turned out for recent demonstrations

But, perhaps one of the polling/statistics wonky number gurus that so successfully reassured us that Hillary couldn’t lose to Trump could work up a useful workable formula to calculate what it would take. It might be helpful for them to design a standardized ratio showing the number of demonstrators per individual senator needed for that office holder to confidently take a stand.

Call it: the People in the Street (PITS) to Senator/Congressman Backbone (SCB) analytical formula. The rating could be formulated to be individualized and broken down by state by individual Senators and for Congressmen by district.  For example Senator “X” from a majority “red” state might need a higher ratio of demonstrators in the street.

I imagine in a safe “Blue” state, for a recently re-elected  Senator or Congressman,  the scientific ratio might be as low as 500-1,000 PITS to achieve 1 SCB. This would mean  500-1,000 demonstrators would be all it would take for a liberal-leaning Senator to show some spine and vote no or even filibuster a Trump nominee. A “Red” state Senator coming up for re-election would need double or even triple the number of people in the streets, perhaps as high as 3,000 or 5,000 PITS to gain one SCB.

I’d bet Five Thirty Eight and Nate Silver or maybe The Princeton Election Consortium might tackle it now that the election has ended. Well, maybe after the Super Bowl and Oscar predictions.

Until that formula is available I have to nod in agreement with Charlie Pierce, who says: Filibuster the Damn Supreme Court Nominee! But imagine, as Pierce dreams, the great feeling of satisfaction it would give to the Democratic base to have Neil Gorsuch get left twisting in the wind the way Merrick Garland did. What chance would you give that happening – a thousand to one odds?

Brokenhearted in America

Uncategorized

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election and immediate overtures toward authoritarianism, many of us have found ourselves unexpectedly grieving the loss of the America we have trusted since childhood.  One of those folks came to me with a letter she had felt compelled to write to an estranged friend who was a Trump supporter.   After weeks of anguished internal debate, she finally could not bring herself to send it.  I thought it perfectly expressed the sadness and anger that divides us now; so I asked if I might share it with our GMD readers. She does not want me to mention her name so let’s just sign her “anyonymous” with a small ‘a’.

“So I have become one of “those” people. You know, the ones who have let the election spill over into their personal lives, someone who has lost a friend because of it, a friend I still care about but with whom I cannot figure out how to continue a relationship. I cherish my friendships. Lucky as I am to have family I genuinely love, there is a difference. Families have to accept you; friends choose to. To me, that is pretty sacred. So how could I let this happen? This was not an “unfriending” on Facebook. This was face to face across a small desk and was very painful for both of us.

We tried to talk. I apologized for withdrawing after November 8th. I could not pretend that all was well, and I thought it might take a few days to get back to normal, which then turned into more than a couple of months. I mean how does this happen? This was a friend, and the election was over and we had always voted differently. Yet, we had always had each others’ backs.

The apology did not go well. During my absence she had had some difficult times and I had not available. And I believe, like me, she valued our friendship. She felt betrayed and angry over my withdrawal. But soon the apology devolved into respective and familiar talking points. We had been in similar territory before over the years, finally pledging to not talk politics. And so the hardest thing to try to explain and answer was what had changed this time, and why I, too, felt betrayed when I had been the one to withdraw.

” What was different,” she asked. “What was different this time?”

And even now I am not sure why I could love before and find it so elusive now. But I think it has to do with choices truly mattering and that maybe I had not been honest before in our relationship by sidestepping them. Politics do matter. And choices and politics have consequences.

For me, the measure of character is how we treat each other, especially those more vulnerable and powerless. In any human interaction, my friend would most certainly treat people with kindness and respect. But she voted for someone who does not, someone who targets the vulnerable and powerless and weak; it is so easy to blame them and cull the herd. It’s what bullies and dictators do.

As one of our greatest writers said, we all bleed when cut. It seems to me that some people judge their blood, their pain more worthy, their hopes more legitimate. And while I do believe in an “illegitimate” president, I don’t believe in an illegitimate human being. And I just can’t get around that, try though I might.

I admit I am a holdout to “let’s look for the positive.” If anyone who has been struggling does well under our new regime, I will be happy for them. But I fear these gains might be made at the cost of our collective soul. Because, kind and caring as my friend is to those around her, her vote supported someone who treats people as throwaways because he just knows they are “ very very bad” people.

She has often talked to me about her belief in personal responsibility, which is important to me, too. And since she made a choice in her vote, I think that brings the responsibility of accepting that there are those in her life who will act or react based on it.

To maintain our relationship I would feel betrayed by having to pretend the things she supported by her vote are acceptable. If I have to not talk politics or discuss my deep feelings and values in order to stay friends, then I have a choice to make, too.

Sadly, I think I have made it.”