Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Tuesday, November 01, 2016

Who's the corrupt one again?

by digby

The fallout from FBI Director James Comey‘s bombshell announcement last Friday that the agency had found emails potentially relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information continued to shake up the presidential race on Monday. There were hours of excited speculation about how it was going to affect the race and whether Comey’s reputation was damaged. And there was lots and lots of breathless punditry about the “email scandal” without anyone perceiving a necessity to define it, since it’s taken on a life of its own.

If you do need a primer on why that issue is so compelling to the news media, this piece by Matthew Yglesias at Vox is a good place to start. In this study of the two campaigns’ media coverage during their respective party conventions by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, Clinton’s email scandal was the single most reported issue, with CNN vastly outpacing any other network or newspaper in its overwhelming attention to the issue. And this was after the FBI had decided that no charges of mishandling classified information were warranted. Since Comey took it upon himself to publicly scold Clinton like an errant child, the news media naturally treated the event as if the words had come down from Sinai and condemned her as if she’d been found guilty anyway.

One of the major rationales for the ceaseless coverage of the issue is the prospect of a Clinton presidency burdened by the necessity of dealing with a full-blown witch hunt by Republican-led House committees investigating her alleged conflicts of interest. Oddly enough, the media can barely spare a moment to contemplate the overwhelming conflicts of interest and legal exposure that President Donald Trump would bring to the White House.

As Media Matters laid out on Monday, Trump is currently facing 75 different civil lawsuits for fraud, breach of contract, non-payment, sexual harassment, defamation, etc. He has three pending Trump University fraud suits and is suspected of perpetrating a “pay-for-play” scheme with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and possibly others to shut down a state investigation into the same fraudulent enterprise. Just last week, Trump was ordered to appear in federal court on Dec. 16 for a status conference in a civil lawsuit from a woman who accused him of raping her when she was 13. (According to the latest blockbuster investigative piece by Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek, Trump has destroyed emails and other documents in circumvention of court orders for decades.)

Everyone knows that last month Donald Trump was revealed on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women, and that shortly thereafter women began to come forward by the dozen to confirm it. A number of such women are now represented by legal counsel, a problem with which President Trump would surely have to deal. (The Supreme Court set that precedent with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case.) One can only imagine how many others might come forward.

And I have written before about the literal impossibility of Trump extricating himself from the Trump Organization’s foreign entanglements, he will have massive conflicts of interest all over the globe, no matter how much Trump and his family try to divest themselves from the business — which they have no intention of doing. American foreign policy would be held hostage to the president’s business interests, and that’s assuming we even knew what those interests were. The only thing we do know is that Trump has dealings with shady characters in various countries around the world that would greatly complicate American national security and its relationship to its allies. At the moment he has refused to give any information about his foreign holdings and the media has been strangely passive about asking him about it. This is all he’s said about this extremely important topic:
If I become president, I couldn’t care less about my company. It’s peanuts. I want to use that same — up here, whatever it may be — to make America rich again, and to make America great again. I have Ivanka and Eric and Don sitting there. Run the company, kids. Have a good time. I’m going to do it for America. . . I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don’t know if it’s a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. But — is that a blind trust? I don’t know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives. And I wouldn’t ever be involved, because I wouldn’t care about anything but our country. Anything.
Now there’s this evolving issue of possible Russian involvement in the election on behalf of Trump’s candidacy. A flurry of conflicting stories came out yesterday, obviously leaked by warring FBI factions. One reported that the FBI had opened a preliminary investigation into the relationship between Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former adviser Carter Page and pro-Russian interests. Slate published an intriguing piece by Franklin Foer about computer experts who reportedly found possible direct connections between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank suspected of being a front for the government. David Corn of Mother Jones came out with a piece about a former intelligence officer finding evidence that Trump has been cultivated by the Russian government for years. And the Atlantic published a chilling report from Mike Lofgren about Russian influence on the far right in Europe and how their interference on behalf of Donald Trump was seen as a way of boosting the alt-right.

The New York Times quoted other anonymous FBI sources saying they’ve determined that the Russian government simply wanted to interfere with the election but had no preferred candidate. (This is an odd conclusion considering that the Russians appear only to have targeted the Democrats, so one has to wonder whether the Times’ FBI source is a Republican.) Coincidentally, a video has surfaced from 2013 surfaced in which Donald Trump says he knows Vladimir Putin very well, although he now says he’s never met the Russian president.

All of this raises a question the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman raised two months ago: How is it possible that Clinton’s email brouhaha has marked her as thoroughly corrupt and dishonest, while Trump’s monumentally nefarious past, present and future are overlooked? Waldman’s assumption is probably the correct one: The narratives were set early in the campaign cycle, with Trump being the bigoted, crazy one and Clinton being the corrupt one. That’s just how the media frames the contest.

They got it wrong. Yes, Trump is the crazy, bigoted one. He’s also a misogynist and worse. But he’s also the corrupt one, perhaps even more than most of us who had already understood that ever imagined. Considering that partial list of conflicts, misdeeds and legal entanglements I just laid out, President Trump is unimaginable.