Senate Confirmation Hearings: #1 Biggest is for Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson)

Rex Tillerson and Vladimir Putin

INTRODUCTION: A 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) study estimated that there were approximately 1,200-1,400 positions in government that require Senate confirmation.

For the Trump administration it will be no different. All the nominees are important and the confirmation process should be fair, open, with no holds barred in the questioning of nominees to ensure that the country gets the best appointed persons in office whether in the President’s cabinet, in the courts, or in other key positions. This post addresses that importance.

BACKGROUND: Donald Trump’s priorities list for DOD does not list Russia – why is that do you suppose? A Pentagon memo outlining President-elect Donald Trump’s defense priorities does not mention Russia, according to a copy of the memo obtained and published by Foreign Policy. The absence of Russia as a top priority would be a departure from military official warnings that Russia is a top threat to the United States.

That article is from The Hill: Pentagon memo on Trump's priorities doesn't mention Russia: The report

I surmise that Putin must be tickled pink (or red) as it were? I can hear him now:  “Cпасибо старого Дональд, друга.” (Trans: “Thank you, Donald, old friend.”).

Related and directly tied to that story without any doubt is the following; a simple and logical question:

“Will Donald Trump and his Secretary of State (if confirmed), Rex Tillerson (former CEO of ExxonMobil) and a close pal of Putin (in his own words, not mine) deal with Russia in strictly a business fashion or diplomatically?” 

This is not a rhetorical question … the cards on the table and the deck appears to be stacked in Putin’s favor. (I note: Or maybe a big fat retroactive bonus check for old Rex for making the the big oil deal - more on that below).

Part of that story is here from the NY Times:

MOSCOW — As a member of the U.S.-Russia Business Council and chief executive of ExxonMobil, Rex W. Tillerson frequently voiced doubts about Russia’s investment climate, saying as late as 2008 that Russia “must improve the functioning of its judicial system and its judiciary. There is no respect for the rule of law in Russia today.”

This past February (2016), however, Tillerson, Trump’s pending choice to be the next Secretary of State, was sounding a very different theme, telling students at the University of Texas that he has “a very close relationship” with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the intervening years, oil industry experts and other analysts say, as Putin consolidated his control over Russia’s oligarchs, Tillerson underwent a profound change of outlook.

He came to realize that the key to success in Russia, a country deeply important to Exxon’s future, lay in establishing personal relationships with Putin and his friend and confidant, Igor Sechin, the powerful head of Rosneft, the state oil company.

As Tillerson and other oil executives pivoted from the private sector to the state oil company (Rosneft), the criticism that they had directed toward the Kremlin dried up.

The payoff for Exxon was immense: a $500 billion joint venture in 2011 to drill for oil on the Arctic shelf and the Black Sea and another huge deal to develop shale oil deposits in Siberia. Those projects were shelved in 2014, after the West imposed sanctions on Russia for Mr. Putin’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine.

“This was a man who was deeply skeptical of Russia, and a person who gave every appearance of being unwilling to commit his firm’s famous reputation for sharp investment decisions and careful financial management to the risks of dealing in an anarchic environment (but on the Artic deal), Tillerson had done a 180 on what I understood his views to be,” said Bernard Sucher, a former Russia director of Merrill Lynch.

Tillerson’s personal relationships with Putin and Sechin are expected to undergo microscopic scrutiny during what are anticipated to be rocky Senate confirmation hearings in January. Senate critics, especially rivals of Trump, have voiced suspicions about Tillerson’s Russia ties, not least because Putin pinned an Order of Friendship medal on Tillerson’s suit not long after he signed the Arctic deal.

Senators will also explore the question of how Mr. Tillerson negotiated the narrow line between his interests and those of the United States. Mr. Tillerson can expect to be grilled on how he maintained access to Russia and its vast oil reserves at a time when Washington was trying to isolate Moscow. They will want to know to what extent the interests of the United States took a back seat to those of a company that is the source of his roughly $300 million personal fortune in stock and stands to reap tens of billions if sanctions are lifted.

From roughly 2010 to 2014, every significant global oil company was vying for a piece of the action, and the Russian government handed out various blocks to keep them all in the game. Nobody got a piece quite like Exxon Mobil, however, and a diplomatic offensive that Mr. Tillerson spearheaded is credited.

And as Michael McFaul said, who was the United States ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014: “Exxon was without question the biggest winner, and I think it was because they developed these personal relationships.”

Continue story at the NY Times link above or here.

Finally I conclude: This is very serious stuff to say the least. A serious quid pro quo may be lurking the background with all this: get the $500 billion back on track; get sanctions lifted or lightened a bit for Russia; making it appear like it’s tied to the mess in Syria and “peace” there, you think?). That is not some wild-eyed thinking – it’s a real possibility. Keep in mind Mr. Trump claims to an expert in such matters as he practices “The Art of the Deal.” (He even knows more about ISIS than the Generals he once said).

Shady deals like this usually come out after the fact, that is after someone has been in office awhile, either elected or appointed, but never this far in advance.

As for me, I see this as the first of many Trump administration approaches and possible missteps on the national political standards bar by lowering it a couple of more notches.

I will address my concerns to the Senators who will hold confirmation hearings for Tillerson and I will address this (maybe you can too):

A serious and not a rhetorical question is: “What will be Tillerson’s impact be with our relationship with Russia? I don’t mean their hacking, or their military involvement in Syria, or the economic sanctions imposed due to their invasion of the Ukraine and the Crimea. I specifically mean the impact of lifting those sanctions in favor of moving forward with the $500 billion ExxonMobil deal that Tillerson negotiated with Russia (Rosneft). Also, can we expect or will we see the Trump administration conduct international affairs and run things like a business and not along diplomatic lines? Or if necessary with steps like through the UN or NATO. Any buddy-buddy or palsy-walsy approach is not the best way when dealing with adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or Syria and others of that ilk.” 

All this is my focus. As usual, thanks for stopping by.

So, No Conflicts of Interest Between President-Elect Trump and Foreign Entities, Um

Newly Renovated and Opened in Washington, DC 

(Already the Center of Turmoil)

There is an old cliché that applies when there are so many things to discuss that one is compelled to say while seemingly lost: “I feel like a mosquito in a nudist camp – I don't know where to begin.”

I don t know where to begin except at the beginning with this introduction from three excellent sources: first here from TPM and that site has links to two other sources: Think Progress here and the Washington Post here.

More will follow I am sure from other reputable sources as this story grows, which I pretty sure it will. So, here goes, first from TPM:

The Embassy of Kuwait abruptly changed the location of its upcoming National Day celebration to the President-elect’s Trump International Hotel in the wake of the election, Think Progress reported on Monday, December 19, 2017.

According to an anonymous source with knowledge of the arrangements and documentary evidence reviewed by the news site, the Kuwaiti embassy recently canceled a contract with the Four Seasons Washington, DC branch, which has hosted their National Day event for years.

The source further told Think Progress that embassy officials decided to move the event to Trump International under pressure from Trump Organization staffers.

Key parts of that story (from TPM):

Abdul-Aziz Alqadfan, first secretary of the Embassy of Kuwait, would not “confirm or deny” to Think Progress that the National Day event had been moved to the Trump International Hotel. A spokeswoman for the hotel also declined to comment.

The Washington Post (part) reported earlier that the Trump International Hotel hosted some 100 foreign diplomats for a reception in mid-November. Then a few days later, Kuwait canceled its contract with the Four Seasons, according to Think Progress.

Other organizations and officials have been unabashed in their efforts to curry favor with Trump through the hotel, which is housed in a building that the Trump Organization leases from the federal government.

Foreign dignitaries openly have admitted that they were booking rooms at the hotel in a friendly gesture to the President-elect; Azerbaijan and Bahrain announced receptions there; and the conservative Heritage Foundation reserved it for an event with Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

Ethics experts and the GSA, which owns the building that houses the hotel, have told Trump that he should revoke ownership of the hotel before inauguration day.

FYI: The Trump Organization’s lease with the Federal government (GSA) explicitly states that no elected U.S. official may benefit from it.

Now that Trump will directly benefit, what does that mean precisely for him in layman’s terms for example? Pretty simple really, and stated this way from the Think Progress portion of this story:

Donald J. Trump and the businesses he owns and controls do not seem concerned about mixing his business and official activities, and he has said: “The law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” (He once told the New York Times).

To a certain extent, he is correct, and although the president is exempt from some conflict-of-interest laws, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently identified nine federal conflict of interest and ethics provisions that could apply to any president, including Donald J. Trump.

One large one looms large over this apparent hotel deal with the Kuwaitis, and that is the The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the president from receiving money from any foreign government or head of state, which he would certainly do in this case. And, according to Democratic and Republican legal experts alike, such a payment is not only unconstitutional, it’s an impeachable offense.

At this point a Rick Perry “Oops” might be in order, you think?

All I can is that a lot of people discussed this very aspect for prior to the general election for months but it did not take root for obvious reasons, which it has – he was not president or even president-elect during those questionable times. Now however, he is going to be sworn into office on January 20, 2017.

I don’t think the country is ready for this or ready for Donald J. Trump under these questionable and quite frankly, sleazy terms and conditions. What do you think? 

Certainly stay tuned as I always say… this is serious stuff. 

Thanks for stopping by.

How to Take Over a Country in 10 Easy (Relatively Easy) Steps

 STEP 1: Here, take these. We give up. So, where's the money?

STEP 2: Get even and settle old scores…!!!

THIS HEADLINES IS PRETTY STARTLING

Trump Campaign Made a Deal With Media Organization for “Straighter Coverage” During Election

Son-In-Law, Jared Kushner, Admits that the Trump Team “Struck A Deal With Sinclair Broadcast Group.”

Specifics are below. As you go through it, please keep this thought in mind while figuring out this question: “How would one take over a country – the whole country – I mean, what might be the, say, first step?”

Here is a simple introduction and that first step, which I particularly like. Plus, it ties directly into the story above about Kushner’s deal.

Here is that simple question (the other 9 points are in this article):

Question: “How does one take over a country in the 21st century?”

Possible answer (at least one) – that it might simpler than you think based on this quote from the great European banker, whom the actual quote is attributed to, and that is: Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who said: “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!”

So, once you have the cash in hand, here is a simple 10-step guide:

Step 1. First and most important, buy out the major news media, ergo: get control of them – all of them:

This can take a bit of a time, of course, but media house mergers and acquisitions are the way to go. Consolidate. It is imperative for all the major media houses to speak more or less in one voice so that the candidate of your choice gets maximum backing and a wave is created. As far back as the 1800's, Napoleon Bonaparte said, “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”

Modern day political candidates couldn't agree more. Perception is reality.

Now, how that ties into the Kushner story linked above:

Donald Trump’s campaign made a deal with Sinclair Broadcasting Group for more favorable media coverage during the election, adding to the growing lists of conflicts between Trump and the media.

President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, a key member of his transition team, “struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage” for Trump in exchange for “more access to Trump and the campaign,” according to Politico.

On December 16 Politico reported Sinclair Broadcast Group promised Kushner they “would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary” using their “television stations across the country in many swing states.”

Scott Livingston, vice president of news at Sinclair, claimed the deal was aimed at “hearing more directly from candidate on the issue instead of hearing all the spin and all the rhetoric.”

The deal:

Donald Trump's campaign struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage, his son-in-law Jared Kushner told business executives Friday in Manhattan.

Kushner said the agreement with Sinclair, which owns television stations across the country in many swing states and often packages news for their affiliates to run, gave them more access to Trump and the campaign, according to six people who heard his remarks.

In exchange, Sinclair would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary, Kushner said. Kushner highlighted that Sinclair, in states like Ohio, reaches a much wider audience — around 250,000 listeners — than networks like CNN, which reach somewhere around 30,000.

[...]

“Our promise was to give all candidates an opportunity to voice their position share their position with our viewers. Certainly we presented an opportunity so that Mr. Trump could clearly state his position on the key issues,” Livingston said.

“Our commitment to our viewers is to go beyond podium, beyond the rhetoric. We’re all about tracking the truth and telling the truth and that’s typically missing in most political coverage.”

A Trump spokesman said the deal included the interviews running across every affiliate but that no money was exchanged between the network and the campaign. The spokesman said the campaign also worked with other media outlets that had affiliates, like Hearst, to try and spread their message.

“It was a standard package, but an extended package, extended story where you’d hear more directly from candidate on the issue instead of hearing all the spin and all the rhetoric,” Livingston said.

[...]

Sinclair, a Maryland based company, has been labeled in some reports as a conservative leaning local news network. Local stations in the past have been directed to air “must run” stories produced by Sinclair’s Washington bureau that were generally critical of the Barack Obama administration and offered perspectives primarily from conservative think tanks, the Washington Post reported in 2014.

During the campaign, Donald Trump’s campaign treated the press with unprecedented hostility. Now, as president-elect, Donald Trump is using media allies like Fox’s Sean Hannity to build support for keeping the mainstream press out of Trump’s way.

Kushner’s deal with Sinclair Broadcasting Group, an organization with proven right-wing leanings, reveals yet another way the Trump campaign manipulated national and local media to stem the tide of disastrous coverage from Trump’s myriad scandals.

I have only one thing to say to conclude here: Wow.

And, for all the Trump voters: Are you still clinging to him, um? I see, I see.

Okee, dokee, then.

Final couple of points: First, Jared Kushner is getting far too much power and for a family member (son-in-law) that poses a serious problem, close second is his wife, Trump's daughter Ivanka based on these two stories about her possibly office in the East Wing (normally reserved for the First Lady) from Newsweek and CNN. Or course, the Trump team denies any of this from The Hill here.

Hint: Does anti-nepotism laws mean anything with the Trump's - seems not so much (source here from Cornell law).

Thanks for stopping ... and as always, stay tuned.

GOP: Playing High Stakes Poker (all in) or Russian Roulette With 6 Bullets

GOP on Russian Hacking and Election Tampering: All in or Not

Find the Final Piece and Tell the Public

Trump's View is Well-Known: “A-Okay, No Problemo”

(My pal Vlad is not involved)

This post is not sarcasm, cynicism, an “Onion” media spoof, parody, and for sure, not “fake” news despite my Trump label above… this is very serious stuff, so bear with me. This is long but easy to follow.

First, this from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) before the two updates below.

Key part: Other senators, including James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), have expressed support for a broad Senate investigation. But Lankford said on Sunday that he has seen no evidence of Russia tampering with election results. Other Republicans may be reluctant to support a wide-ranging investigation of Russia’s election-related activities given that Trump has dismissed the CIA claims as “ridiculous.” Trump went on to say: “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it . . . No, I don’t believe it at all.” (Spoken on “Fox News Sunday” re: the CIA Russian hacking allegations).

At the same time, Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway echoed her boss on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” saying that such allegations from the intelligence community were “laughable and ridiculous.”

Then in typical fashion, Trump emphasized his disbelief with two Tweets on Dec 12:

“Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card? It would be called conspiracy theory!” @realDonaldTrump

And

“Unless you catch hackers in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?” @realDonaldTrump

(I note: is there anyone Trump trusts or believes, other than himself)?

Now the two major stories I mentioned: from the Guardian in the UK and from  the Duluth News Tribune here.

Last week, President Obama ordered the CIA to review evidence that Russia was behind a series of cyber-attacks that compromised Hillary Clinton’s campaign and may have helped Donald Trump win the presidency. There is also a strong consensus that Trump’s businesses and advisers have extensive connections to the Russian government. In short, the Kremlin appears to have directly interfered with an American election in order to boost a presidential candidate with a Russia-friendly foreign policy.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Vladimir Putin would want to interfere in US politics to advance Russia’s foreign policy goals – from curtailing NATO to ending sanctions over the conflict in Ukraine and preserving Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

And as many critics of U.S. foreign policy have noted, Washington has its own long history of meddling in foreign elections, including in Russia and its closest neighbors. Maybe the turnabout is fair play.

But what should surprise and disturb all Americans is that our political institutions, and above all the Republican Party, are so vulnerable to Russian interference. The Republican Party, traditionally associated with a hawkish stance toward Moscow, threw its support behind a presidential candidate who openly called on Russia to hack his opponent’s campaign.

According to CIA sources who spoke anonymously to the Washington Post, GOP Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell told Obama and leading Democrats that he would regard any effort to release evidence of Russian interference before the election as partisan. In other words, he put his own party’s interest in electing Trump and gutting the welfare state ahead of the national interest.

Neither McConnell, GOP House speaker Paul Ryan, nor any other leading Republican seems the slightest bit apologetic about the Republican’s all but open alliance with Putin.

Before 2016, it would have been unthinkable that Russia, or any foreign power, could exert this kind of influence on the U.S. political process. That’s because no national politician before Trump would ever have been comfortable aligning so shamelessly with a rival government. Trump has obliterated this norm, along with so many others, and his party has gone along with him. 

The Republican’s contempt for the democratic process and the national interest have created an opening Putin never could have created himself.

Besides the Republicans, America’s weakness can be seen in what appears to be an escalating war between our domestic intelligence agency, the FBI, and our foreign intelligence agency, the CIA.

The FBI released damaging information about Hillary Clinton shortly before the election, which may have swung the outcome in key states and allowed for the election of Trump on a law and order platform. Meanwhile, the CIA is belatedly undermining Trump by releasing information about his foreign ties. This is not the sign of a healthy democracy.

(I note: Putin surely must love that kind of turmoil, too).

America’s political system is as broken as that of 18th-century Poland. Our territory may not be under threat, but our ability to govern ourselves without outside interference is.

Our antiquated electoral system has yielded a president-elect who is unqualified and temperamentally unstable, and who is openly building a kleptocratic state closely modeled on Putin’s, to whom he arguably owes his victory. Given America’s vast arsenal and international commitments, a government that can be so easily swayed by outside powers represents a danger to the entire world.

A lesson from our own history: In an 1838 speech in Illinois, a young Abraham Lincoln considered how the United States might fall, asking: “Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never!”

Then Lincoln warned: “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

(My note: My Dad always told me that same thing in essence saying: “If we ever fall it will be from the inside by our own hands not from the outside.” Truer words were never spoken).

Today, Russia may be a transatlantic giant, but the author and finisher of America’s destruction is weeks away from the White House, with Lincoln’s party firmly behind him.

In recent weeks, the Syrian military, backed by Russian air power and Iran affiliated militias, has swiftly retaken most of eastern Aleppo, the last major urban stronghold of rebel forces in Syria where tens of thousands of besieged civilians are struggling to survive and escape the fighting, amid talk of a rebel retreat.

One of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth, the city of the Silk Road and the Great Mosque is poised to fall to al-Assad and his benefactors in Moscow and Tehran, after a savage four-year stalemate. Syria’s president, who has overseen a war that has left hundreds of thousands of his compatriots dead, will inherit a city robbed of its human potential and reduced to rubble.

This is a story of the influence foreign powers can have on civil wars. Al-Assad would not be winning without the support of Iran and Russia, which launched its military intervention in Syria a year ago. 

This also shows what happens when foreign powers, the U.S. chooses not to exercise their influence in civil wars.

1.  President Obama gradually withdrew military aid to what it considers moderate rebel factions in Syria, some of which are currently losing ground in Aleppo.

2.  Conversely, Donald Trump will probably cut off all U.S. assistance to these groups as part of his effort to partner with Russia in the fight against terrorism.

3. Others opposed Syrian actions, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, haven’t come to the rescue of those fighting al-Assad either like Russia and Iran have.

4. The U.S. is concentrated on ISIS elsewhere in the country, and Gulf countries are also distracted by their war in Yemen, while Turkey is focused on its fight with ISIS and Syrian Kurdish militias.

5.  Aleppo’s anti-Assad rebels are therefore, essentially, on their own, with tens of thousands already killed; mostly civilians with no places to escape to.

If al-Assad reclaims Aleppo, he will achieve his most significant victory yet in Syria’s long war — a victory that would also belong to Vladimir Putin and the leaders of Iran. The fall of Aleppo will likely usher in a new phase of the conflict rather than end it with al-Assad then controlling all of Syria’s major cities: Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, and Hama. This would allow him and his allies to go on the offensive in other parts of the country like Idlib where Russian strategy is stated simply this way:

“Get them all in Idlib (next city for Russian and Syrian assaults) and then all the rotten eggs are in one basket,” it is an easier target for our warplanes. With all that, it would take months for al-Assad to turn attention to ISIS. Any brokered peace agreement would be on al-Assad’s terms.

The bottom line in all this is simple in my mind and is based on over 40 years of experience: “We do not know all the details, but we need to.”

Stay tuned … the hype and propaganda from many angles and corners and political circles are just getting warmed up; and, keep in mind, that too is calculated strategy, too:

For example, two competing elements: (1) That we must ensure and shore up our democratic system and our way of life to maintain our standards, or (2) to further allow and see all that we stand for undermined from outside forces (any outside forces, not just Russia in this case, or even from inside with the raw, narrow-minded forces we have seen over the past several years.

Number 2 must be totally exposed and rejected. Thanks for stopping by. 

Government Accuses and CIA Assessment Says Russia Deeply Involved in Election Process

Sign Spotted in Belgrade, Serbia on Dec. 5, 2016

(Written in Russian, Serbian and English)

Nope, back off. I don't want to hear any more about Russia hacking.

First piece here from the Washington Post, in part with my emphasis regarding this headline:

The CIA concluded that Russia worked to elect Trump. Republicans now face an impossible choice.

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

The report highlights and exacerbates the increasingly fraught situation in which congressional Republicans find themselves with regard to Russia and Trump. By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence that Russia helped — or at least attempted to help — tip the scales in Trump’s favor, they risk raising questions about whether Trump would have won without Russian intervention.

Trump, after all, won by a margin of about 80,000 votes cast across three states, winning each of the decisive states by less than one percentage point. So even a slight influence could have plausibly made the difference, though we'll never be able to prove it one way or another.

The cesspool the GOP is in highlighted by a few key points:

While saying that Russia clearly tried to help Trump doesn't inherently call into question the legitimacy of Trump's win —earlier Friday, the White House made sure to emphasize that it's not making that case — it's not hard to connect the dots. And Trump and his party know it. The Post's report cited Republicans who expressed skepticism about the available evidence when presented with it in September, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

From Trump himself:

But even as these probes start to materialize, Trump is singing a far different tune. In his interview with Time magazine for his “Person of the Year” award, Trump suggested that the interference could just as well have come from someone in New Jersey as from the Russian government.

“I don’t believe they interfered,” Trump said. “That became a laughing point — not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say, ‘Oh, Russia interfered.’”

Trump added: “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

Trump also maintained over and over again on the campaign trail that he wanted a better relationship with Russia and praised Putin as a strong leader — while minimizing Russia’s favoritism for his campaign. And he did all of this at a time when Putin was very unpopular in the United States and even as the evidence was pointing in the direction of Russian meddling.

In other words, Trump has shown that he's committed to seeing the best in Russia, and it's unlikely another report from the “dishonest media” citing anonymous sources is going to change his mind.

And Trump has every reason to continue to dig in. He doesn’t want to breathe any life into the story line that he owes his election to Russian interference. Trump, after all, is a winner, and the idea that someone else might have won it for him just won't fly.

Then this from the Trump Transition Team (T3 I guess we call them):

Update: Statement from T3, as expected, takes a defiant tone about this report:

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and Make America Great Again.”

The second piece is also from the Washington Post and includes a 2:37 video by Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima below. It very clear and very succinct: 

A few highlights from the story we I find very interesting and relevant and reflects, I think, badly on the GOP based on this intelligence assessment statement:

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected. That’s the consensus view.” (This statement was from a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to Senators).

Back in September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.

As stated above by Trump, he says and believes: “I don’t believe they interfered. That became a laughing point — not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say: Oh, Russia interfered.” And Trump once said: “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

The CIA shared this its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear that electing Trump was Russia’s goal.” (According to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters).

Then I conclude with this short video with remarkable background statements that should concern all of us that we must take very seriously for this is the most-serious issue we face right now. 

Finally this summary from both Washington Post pieces. It is easy to see the logic they present and just as easy to see why Trump and his loyalists fail to believe, let alone even see the point. Why is that do you suppose – couldn’t be some truth in all this, could it? Shut my mouth – can’t be that, eh?

That Post Summary:

[But] For congressional Republicans, the evidence is increasingly getting to the point where they simply can’t ignore it, and some of them are feeling compelled to act — in a way that Trump isn’t likely to embrace.

Compounding the dilemma for these Republicans is that many GOP and Trump voters are disinclined to think Russia meddled in the election. A poll released Friday (December 9) by Democratic pollster Democracy Corps shows 55% of Trump voters and Republicans who did not vote for Trump say it’s probably true that stories alleging Russian interference in the election are conspiracy theories pushed by Clinton. Many Republicans are undoubtedly concerned about this.

But, as long as Trump is holding fast to the idea that this is all made up in an effort to undermine him, the whole thing could reinforce the long-standing chasm within the GOP, with him and his base pitted against establishment Republicans who will (again) be made to look like they’re trying to take down their outsider president-elect. And you can bet that’ll be how Trump pitches it.

It all presents a possibly inauspicious start for the GOP Congress in the Trump era: a potential Trump vs. congressional-Republicans-battle over the same election that surprisingly installed him as president.

Related from the NY Times here.

So, stay tuned, and as always, thanks for stopping by. This is not a done deal or a dead issue – not by a long shot

Economic Improvement Under Mr. Obama Since 2010: Now 81 Straight Months

Job Numbers Can Be Crunched Differently to Make Political Points

(We now have 81 straight months of job growth with 4.6% unemployment)

Employed, Unemployed, Under-employed, and Missing Workers: Real Facts

A look back:

FYI:  From the NY Times, January 9, 2009, and remember that Mr. Obama took office at Noon on January 20, 2009. Economic news ending for the year 2008:

1.     New York State lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008: The worst year since 1945.

2.     Nation-wide, the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent for the year.

3.     That year end rate was the highest since January 1993.

4.     That rate was also up 6.8 percent from November 2008.

5.     A total of 524,000 jobs were lost alone in December 2008.

Related from CBPP here.

Introduction: The United States went through its longest, and by most measures worst economic recession since the Great Depression between December 2007 and June 2009. (Note: And, the GOP still blames Mr. Obama, was in office less than 6 months when we stated to run things around. – Wow what memories, um, GOP)?

The impact since 2010 highlights: The pace of monthly job losses slowed dramatically soon after President Obama and Congress enacted the Recovery Act in February 2009.

The total trend in job growth in 2010 was obscured by the rapid ramp-up and subsequent decline in government hiring, but private employers have added 15.6 

million jobs to their payrolls in the 81 months of sustained growth since February 2010 (averages about 193,000 jobs per month). Total employment, that is private and public jobs, has averaged 190,000 a month over that same period as Federal, state, and local governments maintained fewer jobs.

In November 2016, private employers added 156,000 jobs.

Federal government employment increased by 3,000, state employment by 5,000, and local government by 41,000, contributing to overall gain or non-farm jobs of 178,000 jobs. 

Key parts that GOP talking heads and Obama bashers focus on without offering much detail or clarity: Even with low unemployment number, and in the third quarter of 2016, the demand for goods and services (the actual GDP) was roughly $278 billion (about 1.5 percent) and that was less than what the economy was capable of supplying (the potential GDP). That caused uncertainty with the underemployed.

The unemployed and underemployed numbers were caused primarily as stated: supply could not keep up with the demand for goods and services – a real “catch-22” scenario.

That resulted in an overall idle productive capacity among many businesses, thus they didn’t need people to keep up the production demand – which has lingered due to the Great Recession (businesses never caught up in short as demand increased – simply, they did not have the workers).

Then many moved production off-shore for cheaper labor and other less production costs, and hampered growth even more here at home as unemployment numbers were way off – that not seeking work; those underemployed out of work people.

Yeah, and now you know why.

Updated (October 7, 2016): This month is the 72nd consecutive month of job gains, which compares to the previous record of 48 months of gains, plus, 10.6 million jobs have been created under the Obama administration (but try to find a GOPer who believes or trusts those numbers – good luck with that [smile].

Before going further research here to get a bearing with this excellent rundown with official numbers and explanations from the EPI is one of the best I have seen. See for yourself [click here].

The following is what I am talking about: compiled from here re: my main post follows.

Donald Trump falsely claimed that the unemployment rate could be as high as 42% during his victory speech in NH – remember? That talking point number still floats about in GOP and Right Wing circles when citing official numbers as “phony.”

Some media figures (namely right wing talk radio and FOX) have allowed Trump and other to push that faulty claim, despite the proven and hard facts that most reliable fact-checkers have called “ridiculous” with maximum “Pants on Fire and Pinocchio” ratings.

More examples here which I am sure we have all heard:

1.  Rush Limbaugh has said: The “Actual Unemployment Rate” is 42.9 Percent (running with the Trump number). Limbaugh ranted against the official unemployment rate provided by the BOL statistics while citing a blog former Reagan OMB Director David Stockman, who claimed that “the actual unemployment rate in the United States of America is not 5.5% - it’s 42.9 percent.”

[Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, 6/30/15].

2. Fox’s Maria Bartiromo (The Fox Business Report) pushed that same debunked statistic, saying “almost 40 percent of Americans” are out of work and not looking, while asking candidate JEB Bush about job creation. [GOP Presidential Debate, 11/10/15].

3. Fox’s Bill O'Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor) also let Trump claim that the official unemployment rate as a “phony number” and that the actual rate is “25% or probably higher.” [The O'Reilly Factor, 2/5/16].

Two Reliable Fact Checkers Weighed to Counter Those Statements:

1. Politi Fact: They rated Trump's 42 percent unemployment claim “Pants on Fire.” That rating is their lowest rating.

2. Washington Post:  Their fact checker, Glenn Kessler, ruled “Trump’s assertion a ridiculous estimate.” He then gave Trump's claim his most extreme rating for untruthfulness: “Four Pinocchios.”

All this is how the right runs with B.S. numbers and sound bites all across media la-la land, and the worst part: their base eats it up and then in turn the run around citing the same references with their bogus B.S. numbers as facts.

So, what are the facts?

Official numbers come from the BOL Statistics and several independent think tanks (left and right leaning) and academic economic experts all say the same thing: Whom and what should we trust and believe?

As for me, I read them all, everything, and then I try to measure for myself to find reasons and causes and effects, and then seek possible solutions. Problem solving is more than merely ID a problem… fixing is the key. I cannot rely on a problem like those who rely on things from say, a “Fox instant or dynamic poll,” or some Talk Radio chatter that is almost always negative.

I mean those who blast Mr. Obama at every turn no matter what and who are not about to give him one ounce of credit for the great and yes, it is, great economic improvement since 2008.

One part of the overall problem is that average Americans can’t, won’t, or don’t have the time to deal in such detailed research so they rely on snippets and bogus coverage passing as facts. That is totally understandable since they quite frankly don’t have time in their daily lives, and more so, when they are told not to “listen or watch to MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS – just listen to us since we know what is real or not.” Were that true.

As I said, for me, I like the EPI numbers or those from experts who work the numbers daily, and even though some are “left-leaning, and some are right leaning” hopefully their numbers are hard data from creditable sources (i.e., the BOL Statistics).

From that EPI article (linked above here again) – updated June 3, 2016: call it the basics, like this short introduction: In a complex economy, conventional measures sometimes fall short. In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of the category of “missing workers or potential workers.”

Those people are those who, because of weak job opportunities, or other factors, are: (1) neither employed, nor (2) actively seeking a job. These people would be either working or looking for work if were the job market were stronger.

But, there is always but, right? But, because jobless workers are only counted as unemployed if they are actively seeking work (which is the fairest way to count these them), then the “missing workers” are not reflected in the unemployment rates we read and hear about as described by the novices bent on whipping everyone into a frenzy, usually for political gain, but not offering solutions or if any, the simplest fact (pick and choose what to yap about).

Then the spin doctors focus on that and run with in their bad news and political angles blasting Mr. Obama, every DEM in sight, but ironically never any fault on their side, right? Yet they selectively forget or don’t remember anything in the 2007-2008 time frame when we had a near total economic meltdown. That too is clever PR stunts and political grandstanding. 

All I say is don’t fall for it for the B.S. and political stunts… Do the research for yourself and rely on facts, not the hype, and certainly not the fear tactics. 

As I have said many times fear sells, that is until we stop buying it. 

I hope this post is helpful in that regard. So, come again and as always, thanks for stopping by.

Jan. 20, 2017: Season 16 “The Apprentice” From White House With Host Donald Trump

His Electoral College Views in 2012 When He Thought Mitt Romney Had Won
[click image for larger view]

NSA (and other views) on Hacking

(Prime Suspect: Russia Which Trump Doesn't Believe)

Some reports [here], [here], and [here] indicate that Mr. Trump is not attending regular intelligence briefings... 

One could conclude that he doesn't trust those briefings unless they are cleared by Fox, or Bannon, or Breitbart, or even Alex Jones. Then and only then will they be included in future “President’s Daily Brief (PDB),” sometimes referred to as the President's Daily Bulletin, which is a Top Secret document produced and given each morning at 07:45 to the President of the United States to highlight key domestic and world events.

“The Apprentice” – TV reality show that premiered in 2004 and hosted by Donald J. Trump will now take center stage at Noon on Friday, January 20, 2017, on a platform in front of Capital Dome to deliver, I am sure, an historical inauguration speech as he prepares to enter his new office inside the White House.

Sponsors for that event have yet to be identified yet as it seems Wall Street backers are still in closed door negotiations on that “art of the deal.”

So, don’t miss that premiere show, or as they used to say: “Be there or be square...!”

BTW: This is not my feeble attempt to copy “The Onion” or their format (which I love to read) – mine is not even close (smile).

As the nation gets ready to travel this uncertain and uncharted road, let’s hope we all don’t hear those two fearful words: “You’re fired…!” 

All I can say is hold on tight and find a seat where it is safe and stay tuned.

Trump Tactics Towards Anyone: Bash; Belittle; Befuddle; Bribe; Befriend; Boast

“The End Justifies the Means”

(Always)

Introduction: Am I a fan of Donald Trump, no I am not, but I am willing to see what he accomplishes and how he accomplishes it, or how he tries. However, thus far, and he is not even in office yet, but based on his appointments and nominees to date, things do not look that great. He gives the distinct impression that he intends to operate government like a giant business consortium he just acquires. He will deal in the standard P&L and annual bonus stuff based on past practices around globe as he hangs his trademark name on each deal as the sole deal maker as it were.  But, that is not my focus today; this is:

Background: It's not possible to be an offshore manufacturing profiteer and to simultaneously champion keeping jobs here at home without being a hypocrite. No one can prove that point better than Donald Trump; hypocrite par excellence…!!!

He loves to insult China and Mexico saying they want our people to starve, or they're taking our business away. We have seen millions of jobs move off-shore, but have the “taken our jobs?” 

I say: How about we have given them away, say for cheaper (less-expensive goods that flow back to Walmart or wherever including the Trump stores?). 

On top of that, Mr. Trump also has pledged to start a trade war with Beijing – that ought to prove interesting based on these few facts:

David Letterman awhile back decimated Trump and his swaggering bluster about restoring jobs that have been moved to China and other off-shore locations as he brought up Trump's “exclusive signature line of clothing.”

Trump was ready for the chance to market his eponymous men's fashion apparel as he started bragging: “It is ties, shirts, and cuff links, sold at Macy's, and they're doing great. It's the number-one tie sold anywhere in the world.”

Note: Trump had earlier claimed that he didn't know where his clothing line was manufactured and it was obvious Trump was not ready for Letterman's follow-up when he displayed a couple of Trump shirts, noting that they were made in Bangladesh. Then Letterman pulled out a few ties from Trump's commercial line and asking him where they were made. Trump didn't respond. Then Letterman pointed out clearly saying: “The ties are made in China.”

All Trump could do was shrug and roll his eyes. There's an entire billion dollar industry of corporate mass media asking Trump frivolous questions in 2015, and often failing to pin down his demagogic bluster. However, Letterman exposed him as a profiteering hypocrite in 2012 with two shirts and a few ties.

Now it seems that Trump threatened Carrier with loss of Federal contracts, higher tariffs when their Mexican-made products come back across the border, or whatever else we don’t know what he and IN Gov. Pence promised. But, brag Trump is doing with relish, which is his style… 

So, I simply ask: Is this what we can expect from a President Trump? It is rational and logical question to ask isn’t it?

Tied to this question, consider this article from Forbes, posted here in part:

Donald Trump’s appeal is said to be his straight talk. But when it comes to international trade, he sounds like a hypocrite, the classic “Do what I say, not what I do” politician. While bashing companies for investing in foreign countries, Donald Trump’s own company has shown no inclination to invest and build only in America. In fact, a significant percentage of his company’s hotels and major real estate properties are located abroad.

“Mr. Trump is either inexcusably hypocritical or inexcusably ignorant of economics. There is zero economic difference between, say, a U.S. car company’s investments abroad in factories and Mr. Trump’s own investments abroad in hotels: both are meant to improve the bottom line of companies headquartered in the U.S. by taking advantage of profitable economic opportunities outside of the U.S.” (According to Donald J. Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University).

Yet a staple of Trump the candidate’s speeches has been to bash Ford Motor for building a plant in Mexico. “Trump has repeatedly said that if elected, he would not allow Ford to open a new plant in Mexico,” reported the Detroit News. 

“At his campaign announcement speech in New York in June, Trump said he would call [Ford CEO Mark] Fields “to explain the bad news” this way: “Let me give you the bad news: Every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax. They are going to take away thousands of jobs.” (Trump’s own campaign words, not mine).

Again, is this our future way to deal: use harsh business tactics in foreign relations or international fellowship?

Overall related articles here, here, and here (and from various other media sources).

Thanks for stopping by… My hunch: the worst is yet to befall us. Stay tuned.