Green Eagle

I don't really do much in the way of wingnut wrapups any more, but I thought it would be fun, on the very day of the collapse in utter humiliation of the Great Negotiator's greatest negotiation, to see right wingers scrambling to explain away his failure.  I am sure they will come up with even more imaginative (and piggish) excuses in the coming days, but here are their initial attempts: Katie Pavlich, Town Hall:  "BREAKING: Trump Writes Kim Jong Un Epic Letter Cancelling Upcoming Summit" Epic.  An epic whine.  The letter itself is a laughable piece of self-justifying belligerence from a guy who totally misplayed his negotiation and got taken by a 31 year old dufus.  But to right wingers, it's EPIC! Matt Vespa, Town Hall:  "Eyeroll: Nancy Pelosi Says Trump's Letter To N. Korea Probably Gave Kim Jong-un A 'Giggle Fit' Hey, congrats to Matt, who managed to turn Trump's latest self-induced humiliation into an excuse to mention Nancy Pel

If you got one of these, hang on to it...there aren't going to be that many around, I suspect. Tired of winning yet? Update:  I guess they've got to unload their stock.  Thanks to The Week , this notice at the White House website: They've cut the price!  This man has absolutely zero shame when it comes to making a dollar off of anything, even when it just advertises his own humiliation.  He doesn't even have the decency to stop selling a permanent record of his own incompetence.  Oh well, his base will find a way to turn this colossal failure into a masterstroke of strong leadership, so I guess it's okay.  Maybe they can mint a medal commemorating his walking away from the summit like some jilted lover pretending that they were the one who decided to break up.

On October 1 of last year, as most people will sadly remember, a man in Las Vegas barricaded himself in a hotel room and began shooting at a concert below his windows, killing 51 people and injuring over 800.  The man seemed to be a prosperous middle class man with no known connection to terror groups, and his motives for this monstrous act seemed doomed to remain forever a mystery. Now, however, it seems that the mystery has been dispelled.   In an extremely important report from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which will predictably be virtually ignored, we learn the following, as reported by Adam Peck, at Think Progress: "Evidence suggests Las Vegas shooter was motivated by pro-gun conspiracy theories Before killing 51 people, Stephen Paddock shared his pro-gun conspiracy theories with numerous witnesses... Just days before the massacre, at least two people told police that a man they believed to be Paddock ranted to them about federal government efforts

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate confirmed Gina Haspel on Thursday... Among Democrats supporting Haspel are several who are up for re-election this fall in states where Trump is popular, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida. Other Democrats voting yes were Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire." I don't give a God damn that some of these assholes are running for re-election in States that voted for Trump.  If supporting torture is okay with them, they have no place in my party, and the sooner it repudiates every one of them and finds a winnable replacement, the better off the country will be. 

From the Washington Post today: "The Trump administration is making preparations to hold immigrant children on military bases, according to Defense Department communications" There's another name for that, as I am sure you know:  concentration camps. Coming to a country near you. Next time some right wing jackass tries to tell you that the Republican party is not on the way to turn this country into a replica of Nazi Germany, remember this.  And then tell them to fuck off, when they tell you that it's only for illegal immigrant children, so it's okay.  "First they came for the Jews," and all that. The big difference this time around? Instead of finding some poor sociopath to play the role of Hitler, they picked one of their own, to see that no subhuman action of their was allowed unless a rich guy made a huge profit off of it too.  That makes it twice as good, as far as they are concerned. Here's a little excerpt from an article abou

From the Washington Post: "CIA nominee says she would obey her moral compass, not Trump, if told to carry out questionable activities" Moral compass!  The "moral compass" of someone who approved and carried out torture in the first place!  The moral compass of someone who engaged in illegal destruction of evidence to hide that torture.  That's some moral compass you have there, lady. "She resisted efforts by senators to get her to say whether she believed it was morally wrong to use techniques such as waterboarding on terrorist suspects." Her "moral compass" can't tell her whether it is okay to torture people, but by God, she will rely on that moral compass. She wouldn't ever engage in "questionable activities," as long as we understand that those activities would have to be a lot worse than torture and destroying evidence before she would consider them questionable. And that is good enough for Republicans. "

Rudy Giuliani, from a story in the Washington Post: "Giuliani says Trump doesn’t have to comply with a Mueller subpoena and could invoke the Fifth Amendment... President Trump would not have to comply with a subpoena issued by the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and could invoke the Fifth Amendment if he does sit down with him, one of his lawyers said Sunday. “We don’t have to” comply with a subpoena, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor who recently joined Trump’s legal team, said in an interview on ABC News’s “This Week.” “He’s the president of the United States. We can assert the same privileges other presidents have.” A little unclear there whether Rudy is saying that other Presidents "have" this privilege, or that other Presidents have used the privilege.  As far as I can recall, no other president has actually ever pleaded the fifth, as they call it, in our country's history. And it s

For those who have not noticed (that would be just about everybody) today is the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. If you have never read any Marx, or if it is a long time and you don't remember much, I want to strongly recommend that you read some of Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto.  I am not for one second going to argue in favor of Communism- its history shows that it depended on some utterly implausible ideas about the perfectability of humankind that Marx got from Hegel, and which turned out to be totally groundless.  Instead, just read his analysis of Capitalism and where, in 1850 or so, he saw it headed.  I am convinced that you will find what he has to say chillingly prophetic- probably the most accurate long range economic prediction in history.  It is a deeply disturbing read, and well worth your time.

So what we have learned today is that Donald Trump has made a series of payments to Michael Cohen over the last year or so, in the amount of apparently about $460,000.00 to cover his payoff to Stormy Daniels, taxes owed on that payment and whatever the hell else Cohen has done for Trump.  These payments are being referred to as "retainers." Well, these payments are not retainers.  Yes, Cohen is an attorney, but passing hush money to a prostitute does not constitute legal work.  If I paid Cohen a couple hundred dollars to lube my car, that wouldn't make him my attorney, and neither does this make him Trump's attorney.  To be blunt, this does not constitute an attorney-client relationship, merely because Cohen happens to have (for the moment) a law license. So, here is my question:  I am not an attorney, so I guess that I am just speculating here, but what I wonder is, does that mean that there is no attorney-client privilege in this matter?  Will Mueller, who certa

So we hear today about Donald Trump's replacement of his longstanding (for him) lawyer Ty Cobb with a guy named Emmet Flood. Don't recognize that name?  I must admit that it rang only the faintest of bells to me, but Emmet Flood is a guy who is almost entirely known for having defended Bill Clinton during the Republican impeachment nonsense. I've already heard all sorts of speculation from the as-usual willingly clueless mainstream press about what this means.  What I haven't heard from anyone, of course, is this simple fact:  If you expect to be tried for burglary, you don't hire a corporate attorney, and if you need to have someone write a real estate contract, you don't hire a divorce lawyer.  The fact that Trump is hiring a lawyer known for defending people being impeached says it all. Only Donald Trump really knows what he has done, and why he did it.  The fact that he is hiring Emmet Flood is a huge clue about where he thinks this is all going, and a