#nsc memes | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

In Q3 of 2020, 31% of US users access the Tumblr app daily.

naruto-shipping-confessions · 2 years

Note

Admin your little memes makes everything entertaining hahha never stop

🥰

(Credit to that reply person, though)

#nsc admin gets compliments #nsc admin replies #nsc off topic #nsc admin has memes for days apparently

3 notes · View notes

star-spangled-bastard · 5 months

Note

I'm sorry for being so predictable, but #20 for Trench and Darling for the kiss meme, that would be wonderful to see!!

No problem! This one was super fun! Putting it under a read more cut

Trench had come out of his field agent days with a few scars to commemorate his service. He’d gained a couple since the start of his directorship too, and would probably gain a few more before it was all said and done. As far as he was concerned, it was all part of the job. He didn’t particularly care, or think about them too much.

Darling tended to touch them idly when they were lying together. Trench wasn’t sure if it was out of reverence, visual appeal, or something else entirely. He had asked about one or two of them. He already knew the origins of one. The one he usually gravitated to.

Trench had only ever gotten a good look at it in the mirror, craning his neck, until Darling offered to take a picture of it one day so he could see it better.

When Northmoor had somehow translocated the NSC-01, a large team was mobilized to capture him. Trench insisted on being there. If they needed a parautilitarian to fight him, he was, for better or worse, the FBC’s best option.

The sight of him had enraged Northmoor. How he knew Trench had succeeded him, he had no clue. Maybe The Board was still whispering in his ear. He had immediately ripped up a chunk of stone and launched it at Trench, ignoring the rangers closing in on him.

Trench had only been able to deflect the boulder. It was too big for him to intercept with his own powers. He ducked, shielding his head with his arms as the massive stone impacted the rock formation behind him, sending shards flying. He felt the sting of one slicing his back above his left shoulder blade. He would worry about it after Northmoor was subdued.

The rangers had succeeded, finally, after a lot of tranquilizers and black rock shielding. Trench had gone to Medical to get stitched up and they thanked him for his help even if he felt like he didn’t really do anything.

One day when they’re getting ready for work, Darling runs his hand up Trench’s back, lingering on the scar there.

“Why that one?” Trench asks.

He steps up behind Trench and wraps his arms around him, resting his chin on his shoulder. “Because,” he says, “The other ones came from field work. But this one-” He pauses and kisses the pale skin of the scar. “You got this one after you became Director. You could have used that as an excuse to stay out of a fight, but you didn’t. It’s admirable.”

“Or foolish,” Trench says. “But I’ll take admirable.”

#thanks for sending a prompt!#my writing #zachariah trench #casper darling

6 notes · View notes

nsc-memes · 4 years

Photo

hehehe im fucked

#NSC #nsc memes #memes #school memes #school #high school #VCE #vce memes

16 notes · View notes

all-hail-the-witcher · 4 years

Text

cats the movie was created by the mafia and here's why

so since one (1) person said that they still wanna hear this theory imma post it

first, the reviews of cats are so mixed, it's confusing. im not even sure if everyone is talking about the same movie. lets look at some of the more wild ones:

but then i found these two:

both of these reviews (the second one especially) explicitly mention celebrities, which, made me think of a conspiracy theory

i once watched a video (i think it was a shane dawson one) where he discussed how people believe that it could be a possibility that the government uses celebrities and their scandals to distract the population from their wrongdoing and general mishaps. that being said, lets unpack what we know about cats:

-cats themselves (as in the animal) are generally very cute and people find them funny. it is commonly perceived by some that the internet - youtube specifically - is “that place with the cat videos” and people are very entertained by them (think about tik toks, twitter and tumblr threads, vines, and ig accounts) and even interact with cats if they happen to be allergic to them. it is safe to say that the human population has somewhat of an obsession with cats.

-cats the musical is generally misunderstood by a lot of people. i have never actually seen it but from what i understand its a musical about cats competing to see who will die and theres one good song (memory). the internet has gone about about “what the heck is cats even about” for many years before the movie came out in the form of memes and other random internet jokes.

and now lets address the us government. right now most people agree that its plenty shitty for various reasons. even people in other countries Dont Get It. (im not going to get too into it because chances are if you have an internet connection you've heard about the shit the us government has done recently)

now. onto the movie itself. (hang onto your hats this is where it gets wild)

according to google, cats is a british american film. it is a well known fact that america was originally colonized by the british and we gained our freedom in 1776 (i really hope thats not news to you) but the war didnt end until the british surrendered at yorktown in 1781 and the treaty of paris wasn't signed until 1783. the british were notoriously salty afterwards, continuing to pirate american ships and do other generally annoying things which resulted in the war of 1812. it was not until after the war of 1812 (which officially ended in 1815) that the british recognized america was independent and actually started respecting them. britain and america were also allies and have famously teamed up to stop people from taking over the world (ie ww2 amongst others).

youre probably wondering what the hell this has to do with cats. stick with mw, we’re getting there.

in the weeks after the 2016 election, there were many memes circulating the internet along the lines of this:

needless to say, it was a wild time for america.

now, admittedly, britain was Also in the midst of their own wild time because of brexit, but somehow the election results managed to kind of overshadow that (at least in america).

so lets review some Important Dates:

-june 23, 2016 -> brexit is proposed

-november 8, 2016 -> 2016 election

-march 2017-> britain formally announces leaving the eu

additionally, in 2016 the worlds biggest superpowers were (in order) the us, russia, china, india, and the uk.

now, onto my theory.

the mafia has always notoriously been trying to be stopped by the government for their crime and is a strange organization with a lot of money. the mafia Does still exist although mostly in new england. since 2016 there has been a disconnect between the government and the people due to the staggering amounts that do not support the current president. the mafia may have seen this as an opportunity to overthrow the current government/president and cabinet and place their own person there so that they wouldn't get as much shit from the government.

this theory does get a little bit complicated regarding the presidents suspected ties to the mafia. however, the mafia is very powerful and i have no doubt that they could have somehow blackmailed trump or implemented false records in order to depict the president falsely. or they could have tricked the president into working with them in order to gain secrets to help them overthrow him. the possibilities are endless.

so in the time between the 2016 election and when britain formally announced leaving the eu, the mafia probably had some time to scheme a little, thinking up possible ways for them to overthrow the government.

after britain announced leaving the eu, someone in the government must have realized that it was making britain widely unpopular and they should do something to clean up their image. so they take a peek around and happen to notice that america is royally fucked cause of the president and there are people threatening to move to canada cause of it.

but why is any of this of importance to britain?

well, britain used to be the top world superpower before ww2, but then were beat out by america both after the war and when they announced nsc 68, a plan to make amerias military stronger and provide aid to american allies being threatened by communism. although britain and america stayed allies, it is likely that britain may have been a bit salty about this. and, if they could somehow get rid of trump and weaken the country this may bump the us from the lead world superpower and (if they were lucky) also russia and china who the president was more or less involved with.

low and behold who has the same desires? the mafia.

so the mafia and britain team up to defeat the us government. but how will they do it?

my friends, that is where cats comes in.

as stated, the government has previously used celebrity scandals to cover up and distract from their own. the mafia and britain would not have wanted to make this seem like anything out of the ordinary, so they decided to implement this form of distraction, but twisted it into grotesque exposure. but they needed a vehicle in which to use this

if you refer to my information on cats from before, american people love cats and cats the musical is a somewhat loved classic that makes little to no sense. additionally, theater fans have recently been calling for screen filmed shows so they dont have to spend lots of money on tickets (see newsies live and bandstand) so in order to pass this off as normal they chose to use cats.

howmst ever, they needed to make the american people not like cats anymore so that they wouldn't be easily distracted by them. how to accomplish this? make the cats in the movie cgi celebrities.

the celebrity lineup of the movie is quite impressive, containing the following:

james corden, judi dench, jason derulo, idris elba, jennifer husdon, ian mckellan, taylor swift, and rebel wilson.

these celebrities were all chosen for the type of audience they would draw in so that it would be as vast as possible. (old people, young people, middle aged people, etc).

the mafia paid these celebrities handsomely and coerced them into being in the movie.

now, lets discuss the timeline.

the movie itself premiered on december 20th and the mafia and britain would have begun creating it as soon as march of 2017. scripts take up to 12 weeks to write, putting them at june of 2017. pre production takes 10 weeks, putting them at about halfway through september 2017. it takes about an average of 10 weeks to film, putting them at december 2017. and, according to pixar, animating a movie can take between 4 and 7 years, however, the reviews have stated that cats only took about a year to animate the movie, putting it at about december 2018. this would give the mafia about 7 extra months for any needed editing or fixing between when they could have hypothetically started and ended the movie itself because the trailer came out in july of 2019.

they would have wanted to release the movie just before 2020 because that is when the next election takes place and they would need everyone to be immune to propaganda.

the mafia and britain creating cats explains a lot of things such as:

-why james corden has not gone to see the movie

-why the animation is so horrifying

-why the movie was made in such little time

-why the celebrities in the movie are actually in the movie

-why the budget was able to be so large if it was an epic flop

-peoples general confusion as to why the movie was even made

see, they would have known that even if not a lot of people saw the movie, it would have made headlines just because of how bad it is, terrifying people of both the celebrities in it (remember this includes james corden, a prominent talk show host and taylor swift, one of the top song writers) and of cats themselves.

in conclusion, cats was filmed by the mafia and great britain in an attempt to overthrow the us government.

be careful who you vote for in 2020.

#this has been a whole load of nonsense #i feel like shane dawson #cats #conspiracy theory #god im so sorry #bless

22 notes · View notes

the-nightshade-collective · 4 years

Note

🤝 + Kevin and @manynarrators Kevin

texts the other memes at 3 am: NSC Kevin

tries to convince the other to do an idea that definitely sounds questionable: They both feed into each other in that sense

is the designated driver and who always gets wasted: Probably MN Kevin

always has to host the impromptu sleepover: MN Kevin, he made friends with a clingy thing

who’s netflix account gets mooched off of: They both use Cecil’s

brings all the snacks and who supplies the movie: MN Kevin, the other one can’t be trusting in a 711 alone

is usually the first one to say sorry after a fight: NSC most likely

is the ‘ mom friend ‘: They trade that role depending on the situation

calls the other at 12 am to wish the other a happy birthday without fail: NSC Kevin

is the better wingman to the other: Probably NSC Kevin

‘ the strong must protect the sweet ‘ , who’s the ‘ strong ‘ and who’s the ‘ sweet ‘: Oooooh, the tough one MN Kevin is The Strong and NSC Kevin is The Sweet

pulls the other up for karaoke to sing a duet together: NSC Kevin, definitely

@manynarrators thoughts?

#Venomous Smile #halcyonterror

3 notes · View notes

esonetwork · 2 years

Text

The Earth Station One Podcast - Cats In Pop Culture

New Post has been published on https://esonetwork.com/the-earth-station-one-podcast-cats-in-pop-culture/

The Earth Station One Podcast - Cats In Pop Culture

Meow! Mike, Mike, Michelle, and Bambi attempt to herd all their favorite famous felines of cartoons, comics, TV, movies, and memes out of the bag to ascend to the Heaviside Layer. Plus, writer/actor Bruce Vilanch finds the Geek Seat is no joke. All this along with Angela’s A Geek Girl’s Take, Ashley’s Box Office Buzz, Michelle’s Iconic Rock Moment, the Creative Outlet with Kevin Guillotte of Inked Studios, and Shout Outs!

We want to hear from you! Feedback is always welcome. Please write to us at [email protected] and subscribe and rate the show on Apple Podcast, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon Music, or wherever fine podcasts are found.

Table of Contents 0:00:00 Show Open /Interview and Geek Seat w/ Author / Comedian Bruce Vilanch 0:40:43 Box Office Buzz 0:43:09 Cats in Pop Culture 1:28:38 Michelle’s Iconic Rock Moment 1:31:16 Creative Outlet w/ Kevin Guillotte 1:38:38 A Geek Girls Take 1:39:57 Show Close

Links Earth Station One on Apple Podcasts Earth Station One on Stitcher Radio Earth Station One on Spotify Past Episodes of The Earth Station One Podcast The ESO Network Patreon The New ESO Network TeePublic Store ESO Network Patreon Angela’s A Geek Girl’s Take Ashley’s Box Office Buzz Michelle’s Iconic Rock Talk Show The Earth Station One Website NSC Live TV Tifosi Optical We Got Bruce Radio Cult Inked Marketing Kitten Lady

Promos Tifosi Optics Cigar Nerds Pop Culture Cosmos NSC Live TV The ESO Network Patreon

If you would like to leave feedback or a comment on the show please feel free to email us at [email protected]

#Angela Pritchette #Ashley Pauls #bambe lynne #bruce vilanch #cats #cats in pop culture #cats podcast #Earth Station One #earth station one podcast ep 614 #ESO #ESO Network #geek podcast #Geek Talk #kevin guillote #Michael Gordon #Michelle Bourg #Mike Faber #Podcast

0 notes

redebcn · 2 years

Text

Cachorra com acessórios de verão em praia de Florianópolis vira primeiro meme de 2022

A cachorra da raça labrador Laica repercutiu nas redes sociais como o primeiro meme de 2022 após aparecer sentada em cadeira de praia, de óculos escuros e chapéu florido, na praia de Canasvieiras, no litoral de Florianópolis. O momento cômico ocorreu durante reportagem da NSC TV, afiliada da Rede Globo da região, que colhia depoimentos de turistas sobre o movimento na praia. Em entrevista,…

View On WordPress

0 notes

peytonh450-blog · 4 years

Text

The Impeachment Inquiry Explained through GIFs and Memes

[2014] The U.S. connection to Ukraine, starting before the inquiry was even a reality.

The United States initially forged connections with Ukraine in the early 1990′s, after the country gained independence from the Soviet Union. Moving into the 2010′s, President Obama’s administration offers aid to the president of Ukraine, who at the time was struggling to quell revolts from Separatist forces. Funds were sent to bolster the new government and its military forces, and to provide them help to fight back for peace. Also, Vice President Joe Biden was heading the project with the foreign country, and his son would join the board of a prominent corporation in Ukraine.

Images originally from John Mulaney “The Comeback Kid” (2015), credit here.

[2015-2016] An investigation into Biden and his son’s actions is started, looking into possible threats to withhold money from Ukraine. Plus, the ousting of a powerful figure in Ukraine’s government.

The Obama administration pushes to remove the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who has been pivotal in perpetuating years of corruption. Biden, who is still managing the Ukraine-America relations, threatens to withhold $1 billion from the country as an effort to forcibly push Shokin into stepping down. Shokin is taken out of office in March, 2016.

Original photos from Joker (2019) dir. Todd Philips and produced by DC Films and Village Roadshow Pictures. Meme and text created by me.

[May 2019] President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani cancels his trip to Kiev.

The personal lawyer of the president, Rudolph Giuliani decides to cancel his previously scheduled trip to Kiev, Ukraine. He said his decision was effected when he began to believe the trip to be ‘set up’ by Ukraine. He also places blame on the Democratic party who accuse him of visiting there for a covert attempt to garner aid in influencing the upcoming election in favor of Trump - obviously without the public’s knowledge.

Giuliani after being criticized once and deciding to cancel his trip:

Gif found here: https://a-happy-nerd.tumblr.com/, (gif no longer on account, found through GIPHY, here)

[July 2019] The Infamous Phone Call.

A 30 minute phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian leader was listened to by White House staff members, who took note of the mysterious and suspicious conversation. It was later edited. In the call, the President was quoted asking for “a favor” of some kind. This piece of evidence would come to play a pivotal role in the altered perception of the President from the public’s point of view, especially leading up to and during the impeachment inquiries.

Original photos from Parks and Recreation (2009-2015), image found here, at Know Your Meme. Text added by me.

[August 2019] The Whistleblower

A complaint is filed by an unknown government worker, dubbed ‘The Whistleblower’, about the mysterious phone call. While the whole situation is still secretive, the Whistleblower reportedly accused the President of abusing his office position and power. Trump pushed back saying, “[it was] just another political hack job”, and that he, “has conversations with many leaders [and] it’s always appropriate”.

A summary of the situation:

Original blank format by AdvancedNormie, found here. Text added by me.

[Early September, 2019] Subpoena is issued, and more information is revealed.

The chair of the intelligence committee, Adam Schiff, issues a subpoena to the director of national intelligence for allegedly withholding important information from the Whistleblower’s disclosure. Only a few days later, word emerges about the ‘promise’ Trump made to the Ukrainian leader. At the same time, U.S. military aid that had been previously withheld in August was released.

Original image from The Office (2005-2013), meme format found here. Text added and edited by me.

[Late September 2019] Nancy Pelosi launches an official impeachment inquiry.

Speaker Pelosi announces the formal start of an impeachment inquiry into the President. She claimed that Trump’s actions, “seriously violated the Constitution”, and that “no one is above the law”, not even the President of the U.S.. In light of the new information received about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and the Mueller Reports that were seen by many to reveal foreign aid in electing Trump to office, Pelosi deemed it was the opportune time to push for an inquiry.

Trump after daring the Democrats to impeach him versus after Pelosi actually launches an investigation:

Gif found here, on Tenor.com. Originally from this video, here.

[Late September - Early October 2019] The Whistleblower’s complaint is released to the public and and investigation is launched into some suspicious and revealing WhatsApp messages.

At this time, the real memo from the phone call is released by the White House, meaning it became unclassified. In the papers, Trump reportedly requested the investigation of Biden, and even the cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike, that worked on the 2016 election. Furthermore, WhatsApp text messages between the President and the Ukrainian president Zelenskiy were released. These provided supporting evidence that the President was hinging U.S. support on the cooperation of Ukrainian involvement in Trump’s political endeavors against domestic and foreign enemies.

Template for meme found here. WhatsApp logo found here. Text added by me.

[October 2019] Ambassadors and Public Figures testify.

In light of the new information provided by the declassified document, several ambassadors and figured stepped forward to testify in the impeachment hearings. These figures included figures like Kurt Volker, Trump’s former special envoy to Ukraine. Fiona Hill spoke as well, she is the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security council. Her comments seemed to bolster the idea that there was an agreement between the Presidency and the Ukrainian leaders - a quid quo pro. Career ambassador of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, William Taylor, testifies, as well as army officer Alexander Vindman - someone with expert knowledge on Ukraine from the national security council.

Blank Image template found here. Text added by me.

[Late October 2019] The process for impeachment hearings laid out, and the House of Representatives votes on a resolution.

On the 31st of October, the House of Representatives approved and rolled out the process of impeachment hearings for the future. It is set to include a variety of types of meetings. The senior director for Russian affairs at the NSC, Timothy Morrison, resigns, and a day later comes forward to testify. Morrison claims that while he was aware of Trump’s connection and agreement with Ukraine’s government, he didn’t view it as illegal or wrong. Investigations and interviews have already started, and are bent on uncovering the truth.

When everyone is starting to testify and you want to know what’s going on:

Gif found here.

#impeachment inquiry in the united states #trump impeachment inquiry 2019 #impeachment inquiry told through gifs and memes #comm450 USC

0 notes

cpandf · 4 years

Text

Mystery Revealed – CIA Gossiper Eric Ciaramella: Democrat, Former NSC Staff, Worked with Joe Biden and John Brennan… | The Last Refuge

← President Trump Tweets Funny Meme About Hero Special Forces Canine – Media Lose Their Minds…REPOST: Details of House “Impeachment Inquiry” Resolution… →Mystery Revealed – CIA Gossiper Eric Ciaramella: Democrat, Former NSC Staff, Worked with Joe Biden and John Brennan…Posted on October 30, 2019 by sundancePaul Sperry from RealClearInvestigations has outlined the CIA “whistle-blower” who…

View On WordPress

0 notes

corporationsarepeople · 7 years

Link

“While opposition to President Trump manifests itself through political warfare memes centered on cultural Marxist narratives, this hardly means that opposition is limited to Marxists as conventionally understood,” the memo reads. “Having become the dominant cultural meme, some benefit from it while others are captured by it; including ‘deep state’ actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans.” --Yeah, this is how unhinged people currently in the White House are. And demonstrates the lingering toxicity of Gen Flynn's presence.

4 notes · View notes

garrettslifeexperiencesposts · 4 years

Text

Series: What is Nihilism? Historical Perspective

If you haven’t read all the parts please do so before reading this part. Here are the parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4,Part 5, Part 6, Part 7. Also please check out this book: Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age by Eugene Seraphim Rose.

Why is History important to Nihilism?

I went into this a little bit in Part 7. I’ve alluded to the importance of history on other…

View On WordPress

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 4 years

Text

Trump and his minions will do whatever it takes to hide his crimes from the American people and change the narrative. WE CANNOT FORGET WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST YEAR. It is more important than ever to STAND UP, be HEARD and VOTE to protect our DEMOCRACY. THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT eventually.

BOLTON FACES POTENTIAL LEGAL BATTLES IN STANDOFF WITH WHITE HOUSE OVER HIS BOOK

By Tom Hamburger, Josh Dawsey and Derek Hawkins | Published January 31 at 7:51 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 1, 2020 |

John Bolton could face legal challenges as he pushes ahead with a book describing conversations he claims to have had with President Trump while serving as his national security adviser, experts said, setting the conservative icon on a potential collision course with the administration he once served.

Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is still scheduled to be released in March, even after the National Security Council warned his attorney last week that it will have to be revised because it contained “significant amounts” of classified material. Bolton’s lawyer has disputed that.

Amid the standoff, details about the contents of his manuscript are continuing to leak out, with the New York Times reporting Friday that Trump directed Bolton in May to call the Ukrainian president and urge him to meet with Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Trump denied Bolton’s account. “I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in America and by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC, to meet with President Zelensky,” the president said in a statement.

As Trump and his GOP allies have lambasted Bolton, the former national security adviser has sounded a defiant note. During a private appearance in Austin on Thursday, he defended administration officials who testified during the impeachment proceedings.

“The idea that somehow testifying to what you think is true is destructive to the system of government we have — I think, is very nearly the reverse — the exact reverse of the truth,” Bolton said, according to Austin’s KXAN television station.

White House officials declined to comment Friday on whether Bolton has been asked to delete certain portions of his manuscript or whether the administration has been in touch with Bolton’s team in recent days. A spokeswoman for Bolton declined to comment.

A representative of Simon and Schuster, which is scheduled to publish the manuscript, declined to comment.

A person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the dispute, said Bolton’s team expects a lengthy fight over the issue but appears determined to see it through.

Legal experts and former government officials said the White House has several tools available to try to halt or delay publication of Bolton’s book, including the pre-publication review process.

“If the administration simply doesn’t want the manuscript to see the light of day, they could just drag it out far beyond the March publication date,” said Guy Snodgrass, who served as a speechwriter to then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

“My biggest concern is the process is too easily corrupted by political designs,” he said.

A book by Snodgrass, “Holding the Line: Inside Trump’s Pentagon with Secretary Mattis,” was held up for five or six months by the Defense Department last year for a security review — and released only once he filed a suit alleging the department was blocking its publication. One of the people he said who asked him to remove material was Bolton, then the national security adviser, which he agreed to do.

Legal experts said the White House might also challenge Bolton’s account as a violation of executive privilege or national security, subjecting him to possible legal challenges or even criminal prosecution if he proceeds with publication.

“The president has ultimate authority for deciding what is classified and what is not classified, and Mr. Bolton has an uphill battle to convince the president that there’s no classified information in there,” said John Ficklin, former senior director for records and access management at the NSC from 2014 to 2016.

Bolton’s attorney, Charles Cooper, has said his client is confident there is no classified material in his manuscript. Nonetheless, a Jan. 23 White House letter to Cooper warned that the manuscript contained a significant amount of classified material, including some considered top secret.

The letter, written by Ellen J. Knight, the National Security Council’s senior director for records, access and information security management, said Bolton would be breaking his nondisclosure agreement with the U.S. government if he published the book without revisions.

“The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” she wrote.

Cooper had submitted the manuscript to the National Security Council for vetting on Dec. 30.

“Ambassador Bolton has carefully sought to avoid any discussion in the manuscript of . . . classified information, and we accordingly do not believe that prepublication review is required,” Cooper wrote to Knight in a letter accompanying the draft. “We are nonetheless submitting this manuscript out of an abundance of caution.”

In the past, the U.S. government has had mixed success in its attempts to block the publication of books by former officials. Many experts say the system for reviewing manuscripts for potential classified material is dated, opaque and in need of reform.

“The whole prepublication review system is a mess,” said Oona Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School who previously served in the Defense Department.

“Each agency has its own set of rules. . . . There’s a rationale behind the system, but it’s badly managed, it’s not well organized, it’s not centralized, there are no clear rules, and it is very much open to abuse,” Hathaway said.

Nonetheless, she said, the government has a “Damocles sword” hanging over Bolton, noting that “they could sue him if he doesn’t get the government’s permission, and they could make him give up everything he earns on the book.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that employees who evade pre-publication review requirements can suffer serious financial repercussions. The case involved former CIA agent Frank Snepp, who described the CIA’s role in Vietnam but failed to submit the publication for review. The court’s decision effectively permitted the government to seize the profits of his book.

Most writings by former government officials — such as op-eds, law review articles and even books — make it through the National Security Council review relatively smoothly. Smaller issues are often resolved via email or in sit-down meetings with the author, according to people familiar with the process.

But people who violate the procedures can face severe consequences. Courts have allowed the government to seize multimillion-dollar advances and royalties from authors who violated their nondisclosure agreements. The government could also bring charges under the Espionage Act, though that’s rare.

In 2016, the Navy SEAL who wrote a best-selling book, “No Easy Day,” about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, had to pay the federal government at least $6.8 million to avoid prosecution for not getting pre-publication approval for the work.

______

Karen DeYoung and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

*********

One thing Trump and his minions are good at is 'FAKE NEWS' and 'HATE'

😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

ANATOMY OF A ‘SMEAR’: HOW JOHN BOLTON BECAME A TARGET OF THE PRO-TRUMP INTERNET

By Isaac Stanley-Becker | Published

Jan 28 at 8:14 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 1, 2020 |

The headline drew little notice when it appeared last spring on a blog called “Disobedient Media.”

“John Bolton Took Money From Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran,” it read.

On Monday, the blog entry gained sudden popularity. That’s because its central claim — based only on innuendo and half-truths — proved useful to President Trump’s most fervent online supporters, who rushed to discredit the former United Nations ambassador and national security adviser as news broke that his forthcoming book would corroborate accounts that the president held up aid to Ukraine to advance investigations into his domestic political rivals.

The story quickly gained more than 5,000 interactions on Facebook — meaning shares, likes or other user actions — as it spread across pages and groups devoted to defending Trump. Soon, it became a building block of a campaign to discredit Bolton by impugning his motives and portraying him as a turncoat.

The attacks, which unfolded vividly in the 24 hours after it became clear Bolton had potentially damaging information to share, crescendoed on conservative podcasts and cable television, as individual catchphrases — such as “Book Deal Bolton” — gained currency across the far-right firmament. By Tuesday, they offered a case study in how the pro-Trump Internet targets a perceived enemy, even an archconservative and war hawk.

The vilification of Bolton — branding him as a traitor and member of the “deep state,” a reference to a conspiracy theory favored by the president that a shadow government is working to thwart him — made use of misleading text as well as eye-catching memes. It moved from anonymous Twitter accounts with a few dozen followers to prime-time hosts on Fox News with an audience of hundreds of thousands. Finally, it made its way to Capitol Hill, when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday described the eyewitness to activity at the heart of the president’s impeachment trial as a “disgruntled, fired employee who now has a motive, a multimillion-dollar motive, to inflame the situation.”

Trump himself echoed some of the attacks Monday when he retweeted a post from Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network calling Bolton a “Rejected Neocon” and the “Deep State’s Last Desperate Act.”

That move, experts say, showcased how personal insults driven by online conspiracy theories — which Trump harnessed on his path to the presidency — remain fundamental to his hold on his base.

“It only makes sense to keep dancing with the ones who brought you to the prom,” said Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami and co-author of “American Conspiracy Theories.” The attacks are successful, he said, because Trump elevates them, “hitting back fairly strongly with a smear that pushes back on the allegation without really addressing it.”

The path traveled by the “Disobedient Media” entry also illustrated how random nooks and crannies of the Internet can wind up being useful for political propaganda. The blog is written by William Craddick, who has a law degree from Pepperdine University and works in consumer advocacy in Los Angeles. The name of his blog, he said, was based on a “joke with friends, capturing the sentiment of going against the grain.”

The sensational headline mischaracterized the evidence presented in the post, which drew on a Washington Post story about how Bolton had earned speaking fees from Deutsche Bank, the British bank HSBC and a foundation operated by a Ukrainian steel magnate. All nuance was lost, however, when the blog post gained sudden traction on Monday, posted to about two dozen Facebook groups — with a collective membership of more than 300,000. One of them was a group called “Fox News Sean Hannity,” described as a forum for “all Sean Hannity fans.” The blog post primed Fox viewers in the group — which has no official links to the network or the popular Trump-friendly host — for what they would hear when they tuned in that night.

Craddick bluntly assessed the motivations behind the renewed interest in his post, but he had little sympathy for Bolton’s boosters, either.

“Now the Republicans don’t like Bolton, so they’ll take an article that makes him look bad and push it,” he said. “But if the Democrats weren’t getting something useful out of him, they wouldn’t be fans either.”

Efforts to portray Bolton as craven and self-interested got underway simultaneously, seeking to raise doubts about the timing of the revelations, which emerged on the same day that his book became available for preorder on Amazon. A blogger drew up a meme pairing an image of the former national security adviser with the text, “Turned his ‘drug deal’ into a book deal” — a reference to Bolton’s description of the shadow foreign policy pursued in Ukraine, according to the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former top White House adviser on Russia.

The blogger, Craig Weide, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, posted the meme to the Facebook page associated with his blog, which has about 16,000 followers, as well as to a handful of public groups, reaching a combined potential viewership of more than 74,000 within about five minutes on Sunday night. One was a group called “FOX NEWS with Tucker Carlson,” an online assembly for fans of the Fox host, though it also has no formal ties to the network.

The idea captured in the meme was also articulated in a memo from the Republican National Committee’s rapid response team. “How convenient that this leaked info happened to be released at the same time preorders were made available for the book on Amazon,” wrote Steve Guest, the RNC’s rapid-response director. “What a joke.”

Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump’s 2016 campaign and co-host of Stephen K. Bannon’s “War Room: Impeachment” podcast, took to Twitter first thing Monday morning to brand the former national security adviser “Book Deal Bolton.” The nickname spread widely on social media during the day, amplified by pro-Trump influencers with tens of thousands of followers.

A joint statement from Bolton, along with his publisher and literary agency, denied any coordination with the media.

Conservative pundits were unconvinced, repackaging Twitter talking points for their prime-time audiences. The epithet “Book Deal Bolton” appeared on screen Monday night on Fox News behind Hannity.

“Good for John,” Hannity said. “He can sell all the books he wants.”

But few went further than Dobbs, the hard-line Fox Business host and Trump whisperer who announced Monday night that Bolton had been “reduced to a tool for the radical Dems and the deep state.”

The accusation of being a “tool for the radical Dems” has been leveled widely on social media in recent months, applied to individuals as disparate as Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, and Univision’s Jorge Ramos. What they have in common is rebutting the president’s claims.

Using the same guilt-by-association logic supporting the blog entry in “Disobedient Media,” Dobbs claimed that major donors to Bolton’s super PAC were “never Trumpers.”

“Do you see the pattern here with Mr. Bolton?” Dobbs said, not stating the pattern but relying on his viewers to put together the pieces of the conspiratorial puzzle.

The notion that Bolton, a longtime bugbear of Democrats who has worked in four Republican administrations, was operating furtively within the White House to advance liberal objectives bemused some who have dealt with him. “I think it’s ridiculous, and if it wasn’t so serious, it’d be humorous,” said Chuck Hagel, the former defense secretary and Republican senator from Nebraska.

“It shows you once again that there’s very little honesty, decency or civility in Trump and the crowd around him,” added Hagel, who was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Bolton’s nomination as U.N. ambassador foundered, leading to a recess appointment by President George W. Bush. “I had my differences with him, but I would say that John Bolton is anything but ‘deep state.’ ”

Bolton’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Of the effort to cast Bolton as a disgruntled government holdover, a former aide, Fred Fleitz, said, “He is an honorable man who had some significant achievements with President Trump in the National Security Council.” Fleitz on Monday published an op-ed urging the former White House official to postpone publication of his book until after the election. But he distanced himself from the more strident criticism, saying in an interview, “I’ve never called John Bolton part of the deep state.”

While lacking in evidence, the assertions made by Dobbs rested on a reliable scaffold of misleading claims bolted into place on Twitter over the course of the day.

An account that goes by the name Philip Schuyler — a Revolutionary-era general who went on to become a senator from New York — and describes itself simply as a “Supporter of President Trump” pointed implausibly to the “deep state.”

“Though a Republican, Bolton would’ve fit nicely into Obama’s ultra conceited deep state,” the user wrote Monday morning. By noon, the conservative columnist Todd Starnes, a former Fox News Radio host, was claiming without evidence or explanation that, “These Bolton allegations smell like Deep State swamp gas.”

______

Mike DeBonis contributed to this report.

*********

THE CRINGING ABDICATION OF SENATE REPUBLICANS

By Editorial Board | Published January 31 at 5:50 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 1, 2020 |

REPUBLICAN SENATORS who voted Friday to suppress known but unexamined evidence of President Trump’s wrongdoing at his Senate trial must have calculated that the wrath of a vindictive president is more dangerous than the sensible judgment of the American people, who, polls showed, overwhelmingly favored the summoning of witnesses. That’s almost the only way to understand how the Republicans could have chosen to deny themselves and the public the firsthand account of former national security adviser John Bolton, and perhaps others, on how Mr. Trump sought to extort political favors from Ukraine.

The public explanations the senators offered were so weak and contradictory as to reveal themselves as pretexts. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she weighed supporting “additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings” of the House’s impeachment process, but decided against doing so. Apparently she preferred a bad trial to a better one — but she did assure us that she felt “sad” that “the Congress has failed.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the case against Mr. Trump had already been proved, so no further testimony was needed. But he also said, without explanation, that Mr. Trump’s “inappropriate” conduct did not merit removal from office; voters, he said, should render a verdict in the coming presidential election. How could he measure the seriousness of Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing without hearing Mr. Bolton’s firsthand testimony of the president’s motives and intentions, including about whether the president is likely to seek additional improper foreign intervention in that same election?

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) echoed Mr. Alexander’s illogic, only he lacked the courage even to take a position on whether Mr. Trump had, as charged, tried to force Ukraine’s new president to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, or whether that was wrong. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) managed to be even more timorous, telling reporters that “Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us” and refusing to elaborate.

So cowed are most of those “lots and lots” of Republicans that few of them dared to go as far as Mr. Sasse. Some have echoed the president’s indefensible claims that there was nothing wrong with the pressure campaign. Their votes against witnesses have rendered the trial a farce and made conviction the only choice for senators who honor the Constitution.

Americans who object to Mr. Trump’s relentless stonewalling and Republicans’ complicity can take some comfort in the prospect that most or all of the evidence the White House is hiding will eventually come out. A reminder of that came Friday in a New York Times report about Mr. Bolton’s unpublished book, which describes how Mr. Trump ordered him last May to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to meet with his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani said publicly at the time he wanted to induce Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden because it would be “helpful to my client,” Mr. Trump.

That report underlined the cringing shamefulness of the Republican decision to block Mr. Bolton’s testimony — and there will surely be more reminders in the weeks and months ahead. We can hope only that voters who wanted that evidence to be heard in the trial will respond by showing incumbent senators they are a force to be reckoned with, as much as the bully in the White House.

*********

WHEN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ENDS, THE SENATE’S REPUTATION WILL BE HOPELESSLY IN TATTERS

By Ruth Marcus | Published January 31 at 6:13 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 1, 2020 |

What will be left of the impeachment power after the Senate’s acquittal of President Trump? Not much. What will be left of the Senate’s reputation as the world’s greatest deliberative body? Same answer.

SAME SCARY ANSWER.

The two are interconnected, of course, but my point is not that the Senate was obligated to convict the president. Conviction and removal from office are warranted, but that was never a realistic possibility. And a reasonable senator with an eye on the electoral calendar could have concluded that it would be better for the country to let voters decide.

What a reasonable senator could not do was what happened here: wholesale shirking of the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to assess — which includes a responsibility to obtain — all the evidence of potential wrongdoing. Senators offered up an unconvincing grab bag of excuses for this dereliction of duty:

That the House didn’t do its homework and it wasn’t the Senate’s job to make up for that — as if the Senate had not been entrusted with the “sole power to try” impeachments. That it would take too long and distract the Senate from its other pressing work — as if there were anything more important, and as if the Senate were actually doing anything beyond ramming through judicial nominees.

As bad an argument, and perhaps even more dangerous as precedent, was Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (Tenn.) assessment that the Senate didn’t have to pursue the evidence because, although Trump’s behavior was, to use Alexander’s milquetoast phrase, “inappropriate,” it wouldn’t justify removal. That may be a legitimate basis for acquittal. But how can the Senate decide how bad the president’s behavior was if it doesn’t know the facts?

Most dangerous of all were the constitutional arguments made by the president’s lawyers, which would render the impeachment clause meaningless: A president cannot be impeached except for criminal conduct. A president cannot be impeached for abuse of power. A president cannot be impeached if he believes his quid pro quo arrangement was in the nation’s interest.

That combination of jaw-dropping audacity and constitutional illiteracy now leaves a toxic residue: the impeachment clause neutered and the country in dangerous constitutional territory.

It would have been one thing if the president’s lawyers, rather than doubling down on his “perfect” conversation approach, had acknowledged that Trump’s behavior was wrong. Instead, they slavishly lauded his good works and proceeded to drain all meaning out of the impeachment clause. The Senate’s acquittal in the face of their extreme positions risks complicity with this constitutional mischief. It is not hard to imagine a future Senate being confronted with the arguments of Alan Dershowitz and the Trump outcome, and being lectured on the significance of this precedent.

There are two risks inherent in any impeachment. One, which Trump’s lawyers repeatedly invoked, is that lawmakers will set the impeachment bar so low that it will become a regular tool to seek to remove presidents on the basis of policy disagreements and as an exercise in partisan mischief.

The other, which Trump’s lawyers resolutely ignored, is that impeachment and removal will be made even more difficult than the constitutional structure already entails — such as the requirement that conviction be by a two-thirds majority — and that presidents will therefore feel unconstrained by the implicit threat presented by the impeachment clause.

That strikes me as the bigger risk. Extremists on either side have bellowed about it on occasion, but the country has witnessed very few serious attempts to remove a president precisely because impeachment is such a drastic and unwieldy remedy. There was lots of chatter after the Bill Clinton impeachment that the mechanism would become just another weapon in the political arsenal. That didn’t happen.

Indeed, even with all of Trump’s outrages, and even with a Democratic majority in the House after the 2018 election, impeachment did not become a reality until the disclosures about his dealings with Ukraine essentially forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to take that step.

The impeachment power isn’t needed to keep most presidents from engaging in impeachable conduct, just as homicide statutes aren’t necessary to keep most of us from committing murder. Presidents face other constraints, moral and political, on their behavior. The reason the Framers wrote the impeachment clause into the Constitution was that they recognized the risk, even within the span of a four-year term, of an outlier, renegade president, and one so dangerous that they needed to take desperate measures. In such cases, impeachment isn’t overturning the will of the electorate; it’s effectuating the wisdom of the Framers.

They put their faith in checks and balances. We are left with a president unchecked and a system dangerously unbalanced.

**********

‘THE CENTER OF THE ORBIT’: ENDANGERED REPUBLICANS GO ALL-IN ON TRUMP

By Robert Costa and Ashley Parker | Published January 31 at 4:55 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb. 1, 2020 |

Many of the most endangered Republicans have concluded that fully embracing President Trump is their only credible path to victory in November, rallying to his side in the final days of the Senate impeachment fight and indulging his most controversial actions and statements.

At-risk Republicans — including those in battlegrounds such as Arizona, Colorado and Georgia — are calculating that a strong economy and an energized pro-Trump base will be enough to carry the party as it works to retain the White House and its Senate majority in 2020, according to interviews and private discussions with more than a dozen Republican senators, Senate aides and veteran strategists and officials.

More broadly, most Republicans have also largely jettisoned plans to break ranks with Trump to woo independents and suburban women, who turned on the party in 2018 and helped hand the House to the Democrats. This political positioning is driven in part by their view that Democrats are again poised to nominate a uniquely vulnerable presidential standard-bearer weighed down with ideological or establishment baggage.

“There’s nothing in the middle of the road other than dead possums and yellow lines,” said Will Ritter, co-founder of Poolhouse, a center-right ad agency. “Like no other president before, Republican voters want you to wrap yourself around Trump. There is no upside to doing any distancing.”

Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) has concentrated in recent weeks on rallying base Republicans rather than appealing to moderates for her tough reelection fight, pushing for a swift acquittal in Trump’s impeachment trial while raising money off a feud with a CNN reporter she called “a liberal hack.” Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who is running for reelection in a state Hillary Clinton won by five points in 2016, came under attack by his likely Democratic opponent, former governor John Hickenlooper, after deciding against calling for impeachment witnesses and evidence this week.

And Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), facing a tough intraparty primary fight from Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), has gone all-in on supporting Trump in a state that Democrats are targeting for its growing diversity and booming Atlanta suburbs, including an attack this week on fellow Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) for supporting the call for witnesses.

Loeffler, who has been personally friendly with Romney and who has donated to him in the past, accused him in a tweet of trying to “appease the left” and concluded: “The circus is over. It’s time to move on!”

Trump’s uncontested grip over his party came into focus again Friday as two key Republican senators — Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is retiring, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who is not up for reelection — supported the president by blocking Democratic attempts to extend the trial, couching their positions as driven by frustrations with Democrats. It will mark the first time in U.S. history that no witnesses will be called in a Senate impeachment proceeding.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said in a statement, arguing that while Trump had taken “actions that are inappropriate,” they did not merit his removal from office.

It was the most significant political move made by Senate Republicans this week: Their refusal to join Democrats in calling for additional evidence or witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial, ensuring that it could wrap up in the coming days.

At the center of the calculation was Trump himself, and just how much Republicans feel they can distance themselves from a president who, in just over three years, has traveled from troublesome outsider to Republican Party standard-bearer.

Ritter said some vulnerable Republicans running in swing states and House districts may be able to differentiate themselves from Trump and appeal to the center on specific policy issues, but on something hyper-politicized like impeachment, they cannot afford to cross the president.

“On Trump, it’s binary,” Ritter said. “You’re either a treacherous Democrat or you’re with the president.”

The 2018 midterm elections did provide a flashing alarm for Republicans about the risks of being inextricably bound with Trump. Democrats retook the House majority after toppling Republican incumbents in many suburban districts and in state and local races — a takeover that laid the groundwork for impeachment.

Former Republican senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said challenges in suburbs, such as those surrounding Philadelphia, remain troubling for the party. But he said opposing Trump on impeachment is seen by most at-risk Republicans as the “wrong way to try to win over those voters.”

“You won’t get seen as playing to the suburbs,” Santorum said. “You’ll be seen as playing to the angry leftists who hate the president.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee worked to keep the probe of Russian election interference as bipartisan as possible, said he fully supports Trump and is surprised that anyone might be surprised.

“He’s a Republican, he’s president and we support his agenda,” Burr said. “The media, of course, tries to drive a wedge and wonder, but every poll today shows the president actually stronger today than he was four years ago.”

For Trump, Republican unity on impeachment is the fruit of the ultimate pressure campaign in a short political career defined by them. The president has upended so many norms that he has simply become the norm, with everyone else in the party scrambling to adjust.

That doesn’t mean Republicans all personally like Trump or cheer his conduct, either on foreign policy or other matters — in fact, many Republican lawmakers still complain loudly about him behind closed doors, sometimes mocking him as incompetent and undisciplined.

But many also privately acknowledge that Trump dominates the party in a potent and visceral way and say they are operating out of the partisan reality of an intensely divided nation.

Democrats, they add, should stop expecting a Republican establishment to stand up and block Trump, since Trump himself is now the establishment.

“I regularly talk to five or six Republicans who I feel some closeness to,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “I’ve heard for months that they know the president lies a lot. . . . They worry about his character. But they aren’t willing to come forward and say that publicly. That’s one of the tragedies of this era.”

Former Republican Georgia congressman Jack Kingston said he once had reservations about Trump but has since become an ardent admirer and booster. He explained his transformation with a shrug, saying his party and Washington “needed a shake-up.”

“I accept it,” he said.

The Georgia primary fight brewing between Loeffler and Collins is a classic Trump-era standoff, he added.

“Any GOP candidate is going to want to show he or she is close to Trump,” Kingston said. “If you think about the Republican Party, he’s the center of the orbit. You don’t want him to say something bad about you.”

The impulse for Republicans to link themselves tightly to the president spans the country, and includes some lawmakers not even currently up for reelection. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who doesn’t face reelection for four years, released a 30-second ad in Iowa that sided with Trump and attacked former vice president Joe Biden and other Democrats.

“I’d like to thank the Democrats for badly botching this impeachment charade and for spending so much time in a coverup for Joe Biden,” says Scott, who introduces himself as a juror in the Senate trial. “The real story here is the corruption Joe Biden got away with.”

The ad goes on to levy a series of factually problematic charges against Biden and his son Hunter, but its mere existence is sure to delight Trump — and sparked speculation that Scott is eyeing a 2024 presidential bid, seeking to cast himself as the torchbearer of Trump’s brand.

Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general under Trump who is now running to retake the Alabama Senate seat he vacated to join the administration, is also pushing to prove his fealty to the president — despite the fact that Trump, furious at Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation, publicly and privately berated and humiliated his attorney general for the majority of his tenure.

Nonetheless, on Wednesday, Sessions touted his loyalty to Trump in a trio of tweets focused on former national security adviser John Bolton, whose forthcoming book directly ties Trump to the Ukraine decision at the heart of his impeachment trial. Sessions emphasized that he never publicly criticized the president and dismissed Bolton’s memoir as “an act of disloyalty.”

Former senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said he understands if Republicans poke holes in the Democrats’ case against Trump and vote for acquittal but cannot accept Republicans insisting that Trump did nothing wrong. Those who do the latter, he said, are willfully taking a position they know is false.

“That’s the difference. Vote to acquit? Okay. You can make that argument. But to say this wasn’t an egregious abuse of his presidential duty? That’s where this party has problems,” Flake said. “To suggest otherwise signals complete subservience to the president.”

But Scott Reed, senior strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pointed to Trump’s “unprecedented high approval ratings with the GOP rank and file.”

“It’s Trump’s party now — there’s no way around that,” Reed said. “You may not agree with the boxes, but he’s checking all the boxes.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have had their own challenges holding their ranks together as Trump voters in red states have made clear to Democratic senators that they will pay a price for opposing the president.

Two centrists who won election last year — Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) — as well as Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who will face voters this year after a long-shot win in a special election in 2017, have been coy about how they will vote on acquittal, giving hope to Trump’s allies that the president could win bipartisan support.

Many Republicans also believe that Trump stands a strong chance of reelection against a flawed Democratic opponent, whether a nominee from the left like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), or a longtime politician like Biden.

Dick Wadhams, a longtime Republican strategist based in Colorado, said the specific choice between Trump and the eventual Democratic nominee will help Republicans who have tacked to the right to appease the party’s base win over moderates, as well.

“It’s going to be a choice on the ballot and not a referendum in 2020, and that’s what makes this very different than 2018,” Wadhams said. He added that he was a begrudging Trump voter in 2016 but now is fully supportive. He pointed to Trump accomplishments like passing a tax cut and appointing conservative judicial nominees, as well as his concern about where the Democrats would take the country.

“I still have concerns about the way he behaves, his tweets drive me nuts, and a lot of Republicans feel that way, but at the same time — Medicare-for-all, Green New Deal, killing fracking — spare me,” he said, rattling off a list of liberal proposals. “Democrats are driving people who might want to vote for them back to Trump.

**********

REPUBLICANS AGREE IT WAS NO ‘PERFECT CALL’ — BUT WILL VOTE TO ACQUIT TRUMP ANYWAY

By Josh Dawsey | Published January 31 at 7:20 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 1, 2020 |

IT WAS NOT A PERFECT PHONE CALL.

That was the message to President Trump from a range of Republican senators on Friday — even as they voted to block witnesses from the Senate impeachment trial and signaled they would vote to acquit him on charges that he sought to tie foreign aid to Ukraine launching an investigation into a political foe.

In sparing the president a continued spectacle, the senators pointedly offered the defense that many GOP senators wished to make all along: That Trump’s actions, while odious, were not deserving of the political death sentence.

As more revelations from former national security adviser John Bolton’s book flowed, senators shrugged. They knew what he’d done, they said. It was not great, they added, but not that bad. They were ready to move on.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky.

He then explained why he would not vote against the president. “The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate,” Alexander said.

While the terms were entirely different, it was in one respect similar to former president Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial: Democratic senators impugned Clinton’s conduct and questioned his morals for lying about sex in the White House — but did not believe it rose to the level of impeachable offenses.

A number of Republican senators agreed that Trump should not have asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden, former vice president Joe Biden’s son, during the phone call while raising a debunked theory about a Democratic National Committee server and Ukrainian interference in the election.

That Trump should not have withheld foreign aid to Ukraine for months, raising questions about the United States’ support for the country at war with Russia and sending Congress and the foreign policy firmament into a perplexed tizzy.

That Trump should not have involved his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani in an irregular foreign policy channel to “attempt to interfere in an investigation,” in Giuliani’s own words.

And that Trump should not have ousted career diplomat Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine after a smear campaign that even some of his own administration officials admitted was filled with erroneous information.

Many of the senators did not try to justify or explain the president’s conduct. Some mentioned an election in nine months or other Trump accomplishments. “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said.

Alexander said the case had been proved. Trump was guilty. He was just not going to convict.

“Wrong and inappropriate,” said Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican who repeatedly asked the administration to release the aid to Ukraine. That was in a statement when he declared he wanted to hear no more.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a moderate Republican who delivered the death blow for a Democrat-led bid to hear from more witnesses, instead attacked Congress for not doing its job.

The terrible-but-not-impeachable defense rang hollow to some of the president’s critics. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the House impeachment managers, talked of the “Dershowitz Principle of Constitutional Lawlessness,” referring to Alan Dershowitz, one of Trump’s attorneys, and his expansive legal arguments.

Trump was unlikely to enjoy the statements, even if he liked the votes. He had repeatedly told lawmakers that he did not want to give an inch, and wanted lawmakers, surrogates and allies to reiterate his oft-said statement that the call was “perfect.”

“I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL,” he posted, in all caps, on Jan. 16. “What I said on the phone call with the Ukrainian President is ‘perfectly’ stated,” Trump tweeted in November.

“READ THE TRANSCRIPTS!” he said, turning what some advisers believed was the most damning piece of evidence into his cri de coeur of innocence.

He told senators and allies that he did not want to distance himself from Giuliani when they suggested the lawyer’s actions were potentially an albatross. In a statement Friday, he called Giuliani “one of the greatest corruption fighters in America and by far the greatest mayor in the history of N.Y.C.”

He never conceded — as some lawmakers did — that his treatment of Yovanovitch was poor, instead taunting her on Twitter as she testified in the House about her abrupt firing and the threats she received.

“Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?” he wrote as she spoke. “. . . It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.”

As he stepped out of the White House one week after the impeachment inquiry was launched, he did not back down from calling for political investigations into his opponent. Instead, he called for China to investigate the Biden family as well — doubling down on the original sin with a new country.

Even in private, advisers say Trump has repeatedly stated it was a perfect phone call, that he does not understand, or at least will not admit, the impropriety of what he did.

“He genuinely believes he did nothing wrong,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump ally, said in a recent interview.

Dershowitz said he was pleased with the statements from the senators who criticized the president’s conduct but said they would not remove him.

“That’s right,” he said, asked if that was the point of his argument. “My argument was whether or not you think he did anything wrong, it was it did not

rise to the level of impeachment.”

Dershowitz declined to comment when asked if he thought the president did anything wrong, or whether the call was perfect.

“That’s something we should all take into account when we vote in nine months,” he said.

*********

THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WAS RIGGED!

By Dana Milbank | Published January 31 at 8:11 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 1, 2020 |

In the end, they DIDN’T EVEN PRETEND to take their OATHS SERIOUSLY.

Senators were instructed “to be in attendance at all times” during President Trump’s impeachment trial. But as the Democratic House managers made their last, fruitless appeals Friday for the Senate to bring witnesses and documents, several of the body’s 53 Republican senators didn’t even bother to show up.

“A trial is supposed to be a quest for the truth,” lead manager Adam Schiff pleaded.

Thirteen GOP senators were missing as he said this. Sens. Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) chewed gum.

Manager Val Demings (Fla.) reminded them that this would be the “only time in history” that an impeachment trial was held without witnesses or relevant documents.

Twelve Republican senators were missing. Josh Hawley (Mo.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) joined in the chewing.

“The American people deserve to hear the truth,” insisted manager Sylvia Garcia (Tex.). By now, 15 Republican senators were missing.

Manager Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) spoke from the well. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), wearing cotton chinos for the occasion, perused a magazine.

“Please don’t give up,” manager Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) urged. “This is too important.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) stuck a finger in his left nostril. Johnson waved a hand dismissively and shared a chuckle with Cramer. Fully 20 Republican senators were missing.

At the start of the impeachment trial, Trump’s Senate allies limited media coverage to hide from public scrutiny. Then they made sure the trial would end without a single witness called or a single document requested. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the clinching vote against witnesses, declared before Friday’s session began, “I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything.”

It was all over but the shouting. And now several of those who had rushed Trump toward acquittal wouldn’t even grant the courtesy of listening to the House managers. (They returned, curiously, when Trump’s defenders had their turn in the well; Paul put away his magazine.)

This was an ugly end to an ugly trial. It began with bold promises by the president’s lawyers to prove there was no quid pro quo in his dealings with Ukraine. When former national security adviser John Bolton’s manuscript, with firsthand evidence of the quid pro quo, made that impossible, key Republicans fell back to a new position: Trump’s guilt doesn’t matter.

“There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) declared late Thursday. But the choice of “what to do about what he did,” Alexander said, should be “in the presidential election.”

What an elegant solution! He accepts that Trump is guilty of cheating in the election — and, therefore, his fate should be determined by the very election in which he has cheated.

It’s like a sprinter, caught doping before a competition, being told his fate would be determined by having him run the race.

RIGGED!

Shortly before Alexander declared Trump guilty but unimpeachable, Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin made the same argument. “Even if John Bolton would say it is true, that is not an impeachable offense,” he told the senators.

Now that the Senate has accepted the White House argument that Trump’s cheating in the election is “perfectly permissible,” why wouldn’t Trump continue to cheat? Why would anybody have faith that the 2020 election will be on the level?

Democrats now take their case to the voters, unsure of who might be helping Trump’s campaign. Putin? Erdogan? Xi? MBS?

Republicans, poised to benefit from foreign help, expressed no such alarm. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Friday that “just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president.” Rubio thought it “difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.”

NOW, VLADIMIR PUTIN GETS TO PUT THAT LOGIC TO THE TEST.

“Senators, there is a storm blowing through this Capitol,” Schiff warned on Friday. “Its winds are strong and they move us into uncertain and dangerous directions.”

But on the Senate floor, those on the GOP side who bothered to attend (the Democratic side was largely full throughout the day) were tranquil. Cory Gardner (Colo.) edited some text. John Neely Kennedy (La.) looked at news clippings and a bar graph. Mike Lee (Utah) tapped his watch and studied its glowing screen. John Barrasso (Wyo.) struck up a chat. Others busied themselves with reading.

At the start of Friday’s session, Senate Chaplain Barry Black reminded the senators that “we reap what we sow.”.

In their cowardly, 51-to-49 vote Friday evening to speed a guilty president on his way to a hasty acquittal while suppressing the evidence, Trump’s protectors planted the seeds of a poisonous harvest in November.

*********

0 notes

velmaemyers88 · 5 years

Text

Stephen Miller plots to put scandal-plagued Border Patrol in charge of asylum interviews – ThinkProgress

White House operative Stephen Miller is maneuvering to further sabotage the asylum process by replacing highly trained career staff with border cops at a crucial early stage.

The scheme would shift responsibility for initial “credible fear interviews” with asylum-seekers away from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency where it’s rested for years. Miller is eager to replace USCIS’s professional asylum interviewers with Border Patrol officers, emails reported by NBC News suggest.

The credible fear interview process has long been a target for President Donald Trump’s staffers seeking to radically restrict Latinx immigration. Miller in particular is seen as a prime mover behind Trump’s efforts to restrict legal immigration as well as flows of undocumented people — including support for work-visa rule changes that experts say would favor white Europeans.

The laws and legal standards underlying those interviews err on the side of asylum-seekers by design, because passing a credible fear check only ensures that the asylum-seeker will get to go before an immigration judge. These first-round interviews are intended to be a modest screening rather than a hard barrier, in part because the final determination of an asylum case is viewed as so sophisticated as to require a courtroom adjudication.

But Trump’s team have already assigned a few dozen Border Patrol agents to conduct credible fear interviews as part of a pilot program. The new emails reveal that Miller wanted someone to give him numbers to show those Border Patrol interviewers were rejecting credible-fear claims at higher rates than the experts at USCIS.

A National Security Council official prepping U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff for a meeting with Miller last Friday warned them to bring numbers and be prepared to discuss “when the [USCIS asylum] officers will no longer be looking over the shoulders of agents.”

Border Patrol agents are not trained to conduct these interviews. The credible-fear process is deceptively complex, resting on a multi-layered combination of concrete statutory language and shifting interpretation of that language by both executive branch officials and judges. USCIS staff run the interviews because they are specialists in these complexities.

Border Patrol agents would receive crash-course training – the first 10 agents assigned to the current pilot program were still in training as of May but have apparently conducted enough binding credible-fear interviews in the ensuing couple months to generate numbers worth presenting to Miller at the July meeting – then replace people with years or decades of actual experience working within the system. From the xenophobic perspective that Miller and Trump espouse, this is perfectly rational: They want the asylum doors to swing shut, so they’re picking the right tool for the job.

But handing asylum interviews over to Border Patrol is more than just a misallocation of resources. It’s a conscious choice to give more power to a law enforcement body whose reputation, credibility, and integrity have all become obviously questionable in the past few years.

A secret Facebook group where Border Patrol officers cracked racist jokes, shared misogynistic memes, and propagated 4chan-like conspiracy theories had more than 9,000 members before it was exposed by reporters earlier this year.

A dozen people have died in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody since September alone.

Homeland Security’s efforts to staff up Border Patrol with new and well-qualified bodies have gone poorly, with the private company contracted by the Trump administration to vet new hires delivering exactly two new border cops while charging taxpayers $13.6 million over its first year.

Anecdotal examples of corruption and ethical rot within the agency have begun to stack up. Agents have been accused of sexual abuse and murder. Migrants held in CBP custody routinely report verbal abuse, petty punishments for being noisy while held in dangerously unsanitary conditions, and an alarming mix of isolation, undernourishment, and psychological cruelty at the hands of agents.

This isn’t some spontaneous explosion of lawlessness and cruelty following from Trump’s own political victories, either. It’s a deep-set and long-standing culture within Border Patrol – according to experts from within the policing profession who’ve looked into the matter officially. Former New York City police chief Bill Bratton led a review prior to the 2016 election that found “that arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other federal law enforcement agencies.”

This is the talent pool from which Miller hopes to pull personnel to be flash-trained in federal asylum law and then empower to evaluate whether migrants’ fears of violence are credible enough to merit a full hearing.

In case the goal of all this isn’t clear, the emails also shed new light on a lingering sub-plot within the administration’s multifaceted border crackdown.

When Trump’s decision to separate children from their parents upon arrival first became public, the administration scrambled to contain the political damage — and repeatedly flip-flopped in the process. Reporters asking why the administration was breaking up families tended to get one of two contradictory answers. Sometimes Trump’s delegates would seek to deflect blame for the family separation policy by insisting they had no other choice under existing law and court precedent. Trump himself blamed unspecified “bad laws the Democrats gave us” to shrug off responsibility.

But on other occasions, rather than lamenting their hands had been forced, officials would explain they were breaking up families so that word would get back to Central American countries that the journey north could end with someone’s kids being confiscated by American law enforcement.

This deterrence argument for family separation fueled the story, of course. The administration had been caught doing something widely reviled as inhumane and monstrous, and responded by bragging that it had done that thing on purpose to send a grim message. They were, in effect, making examples out of these kids by taking them, isolating them, and subjecting them to early-childhood traumas that psychologists warn will have lifelong negative effects.

DHS, HHS, DOJ, and White House officials seemed to realize quickly how damaging that boast was to public approval for Trump’s immigration policies. They began insisting they’d never made a voluntary choice to discourage migration by breaking up families at all. By the fall, internal memos confirmed the opposite: Administration officials had hoped ripping families apart would discourage future migrants, then redacted that brainstorm from documents they released to the public.

What does all this have to do with the new internal deliberations over which portion of the immigration bureaucracy should handle credible-fear interviews? The emails also show that Trump’s senior staff continue to privately support the idea that the harsher the U.S. treats people arriving to the border, the fewer future migrants it will have to interface with at all.

“My mantra has persistently been presenting aliens with multiple unsolvable dilemmas to impact their calculus for choosing to make the arduous journey to begin with,” the NSC official wrote, according to NBC.

Credit: Source link

The post Stephen Miller plots to put scandal-plagued Border Patrol in charge of asylum interviews – ThinkProgress appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.

from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.com/stephen-miller-plots-to-put-scandal-plagued-border-patrol-in-charge-of-asylum-interviews-thinkprogress/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=stephen-miller-plots-to-put-scandal-plagued-border-patrol-in-charge-of-asylum-interviews-thinkprogress from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.tumblr.com/post/186657447087

0 notes

reneeacaseyfl · 5 years

Text

Stephen Miller plots to put scandal-plagued Border Patrol in charge of asylum interviews – ThinkProgress

White House operative Stephen Miller is maneuvering to further sabotage the asylum process by replacing highly trained career staff with border cops at a crucial early stage.

A dozen people have died in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody since September alone.

In case the goal of all this isn’t clear, the emails also shed new light on a lingering sub-plot within the administration’s multifaceted border crackdown.

Credit: Source link

The post Stephen Miller plots to put scandal-plagued Border Patrol in charge of asylum interviews – ThinkProgress appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs

calicoclan

Clan Redstone

seb-studies-neuro

Study Inspo

frasesmarins-blog

Frases Marins

ourson60

Sans titre

clive-staples-lewis

Fuck SCOTUS