No, They Are Not There to "Help"

The Portland moms were hit with CS gas overnight, as federal officials refuse to remove “heavy” force presence https://t.co/lyC0oj6Zlu

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) July 20, 2020

The federal not-that-secret-anymore-police in Portland are not wanted, aren't trained for riot control, are causing bodily harm to nonviolent protesters, and have tear-gassed non-violently protesting women, some of whom were visibly pregnant. Their presence makes the situation more fraught, not less and renews interest in the ongoing protest, not decreasing it.

If this were a test-case to see what a full roll-out of such "help" nationwide would be like, I'd suggest that it was a failure and the Trump Administration should bag it. But it isn't supposed to help. I don't know what Trump wants from visions of "American carnage" under his watch, but he seems set on having them. He's a disgrace and so is his little jumped-up non-confirmed security spiv, Chad. I don't know if this is a prelude for some kind of shenanigans in the street in November, or if Trump is once again just trying to be seen "doing something" so as not to appear hapless.

But I'm pretty well convinced that actual "help" was not the big idea around this decision.

A Very Big TrumpWorld Grab-Bag

On Friday, Rick Gates plead guilty to two criminal counts and his associate, Paul Manafort, was hit with a whole slew of new charges.  These new charges might not even be the final word on what Manafort is being charged with, because Gates is now cooperating with the Mueller investigation--and Gates knows everything (or damn near) the Manafort has been doing, and his deal rests on giving Mueller whatever assistance is relevant to his probe. The probe is pretty broad, and it sounds like Gates is pretty well busted. And this means Manafort is pretty well busted too. 

There's bank fraud, there's tax fraud, there's money laundering, there's unregistered foreign lobbying, and while there isn't just as yet a clear connection to how this ties into the Russian election tampering probe, it clearly shows how seriously leveraged and therefore, vulnerable to being used by or as foreign agents they were. Especially Manafort, as Josh Marshall sketches out (you need TPM Prime for that one, I think--you should really get TPM Prime). Anyway, Paul Manafort was a guy so desperate for money that he went out of his way to work for the Trump campaign for free (as did a lot of folks, apparently)--but it's hard to imagine he got nothing of value out of the job. And he remained in contact with the campaign through the transition (via the VP candidate he "helped" choose--Mike Pence). (Gates, of course, remained with the Trump campaign right through the transition, himself.)

What kinds of thing would Manafort's position with the Trump campaign be good for? Well, maybe getting a spot in an eventual Trump cabinet for one of his creditors? Or helping "tweak" the Trump campaign's position on Ukraine? Who knows what checks Manafort's mouth might have written out of the Trump's eventual presidency account? (Which could only get paid if Trump's win could be ensured?)

But back to Gates--one of the things he is copping to, is making false statements to investigators in the probe. That's what tripped up Mike Flynn, too. It also tripped up damn handsome attorney Alex van der Zwaan. This guy, van der Zwaan, is fascinatingly connected to a Russian billionaire by marriage who is, like Trump's steadfast fixer, Michael Cohen, suing Buzzfeed over the Steele Dossier. That billionaire, German Khan, owns Alfa Group which includes Alfa Bank, which is an interesting side-story in all this that you probably have already heard about. 

But: what was Gates lying about? 

A meeting with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. That would be the congressman who Rep. Kevin McCarthy, maybe not entirely in jest, suggested worked for Putin. This seems a little less funny in context. I kind of feel like Rohrabacher's business damn near speaks for itself.  

Anyhow, you know who Donald Trump crowed about working for nothing (Nothing!) and was definitely deserving of all the top secret clearance despite his being seriously financially leveraged?  His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who helped bring Paul Manafort on to the campaign. There are apparently good reasons Kushner's clearance situation is problematic--and again, working for the White House even for free doesn't mean he can't take away anything of value. 

In completely other news, one of the 13 indicted Russians from the past week is linked to a Russian mercenary group that attacked US soldiers in Syria.  I'd say anything at all about that, but I'm mostly speechless, because the complications of all this Trump/Russia business are, in some ways, unspeakable. They just shouldn't be. 

Also--the Nunes memo was always partisan trash and the Democratic memo confirms that the investigation into all this, but especially Carter Page, was already underway because of course it was. The Steele Dossier is not the only iron anyone ever had in the ongoing Trump Russia dumpster fire.  

Has He Even Had Breakfast, Yet?

One would prefer a Commander-in-Chief who doesn't broadcast stuff like this over Twitter in the gosh-darn AM while his Secretary of State is "over there" saying military force is on the table. (Although Tillerson may have just been tired at the time.)  It's just a bit disconcerting. Not just for US folks--South Korea, Japan. Lots of people might be just a bit, you know. Concerned.

None of this Stuff is Normal

The above picture is Trump at Mar-A-Lago, where he received a call that North Korea had launched a ballistic missile. Although you could call the resort very exclusive (as in "pricey") I don't think you could actually call it "secure". As in, I don't know that it's actually ok that national security issues are mapped out in a place public enough that randos can take snaps of a curiously-composed CINC who seems cut-off from the flurry of discussion behind him-because a camera happens to be pointed in his direction.

This is fairly removed from a discussion one might have had about electronic communications occurring during the previous administration. This is not normal, and for an administration that already has engendered a fraught relationship with the intelligence community, openly flouting procedure is not going to be a good confidence-booster.

You'd think that Congress might offer some oversight--but no. Apparently, tax cuts for rich people and dismantling the social safety net have a lot more priority than complete confidence in the basic competence of the executive branch for GOP elected officials.

The result? I think Trump's basic unpopularity (although he and his supporters are loathe to admit or recognize it) could well rub off on certain House members--although 2018 seems such a long time from now. But in the short term, there may be economic indicators and other signs that all is not healthy in the US--let alone "great".  It's nonsensical when the "winner" of an election has to have his surrogates trot out in front of cameras and lie about voter fraud, and is so desperate for love he wants the press to cover his rows of supporters--when he was looking out at protesters (and somehow not noticing their "resist" signs).

There's a lot of weird going on. The only way for me to look at it is to point out: it is not normal. And the way it differs from normal is not good.

This is Really Weird

Head of DC National Guard ordered to step down on Inauguration Day https://t.co/WzoEUHL4jn pic.twitter.com/Oadxz49R2F

— The Hill (@thehill) January 13, 2017

I'm not any kind of security expert or anything, but wouldn't the beginning of the inauguration, in a town swamped with folks for both the ceremony and multiple protests, be the last time in the world you would want this hand-off to happen?

Just asking for, oh, everybody, I guess.

UPDATE: And the Trump transition has now, after the report, decided Maj. General Schwartz should stay on a few more days.

Trump vs. Bush: 9/11

How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 16, 2015

Donald Trump just crossed what has been something of a political red-line in acknowledging that George W. Bush was president during 9/11 and maybe could have seen the attack coming and didn't keep us safe. (He also pointed out that a hurricane nearly wiped a major city away--again, American people weren't "kept safe"--there was a tragedy, then a slow, grinding, and not necessarily efficient response.)

Jeb Bush's response is to call this "pathetic" and insist his brother "kept us safe".

Kept who safe?

I think Trump is bombastic and have a problem accepting his seriousness. I don't know to what extent he understands the ins-and-outs of public service, and given that he would've left afflicted doctors who contracted ebola behind, well, he's not a model of overflowing selfless compassion--but do I think the Bushes, as a clan, are singularly incapable of understanding that you specifically address a problem and solve it and you do not find another thing to do and then flog it because you don't know how in the hell to fix the problem you ignored until it became tragic. Giving medals to Jerry Bremer, George Tenant, and saying "Heckuva job, Brownie" all kind of suggested someone who would nod at the fuck-ups to the extent that they protected number one--Bush himself.

Jeb Bush can't admit that George Bush's style of management is a big part of why the "War on Terror" became a campaign against an idea with a raft of tactics attached, not an approach to a problem that started with recognizing the terrorism threat in the first place and followed up with a strategy to combat terrorism based on and building on successful strategies in the past.

Donald Trump knew to go there. He crossed that line and is not in a place where criticizing GWB will hurt him. It won't. He criticized John McCain's "heroism". We know he has discovered a different way of campaigning based on giving no fucks. But the thing of it is, Jeb Bush was certain that "his brother kept us safe" would really sound right. Sure, it was said on the right for the longest time. It never was really true. But believing it would never be challenged left him with a half-hearted response. You can't say these things unless you believe them. How do you do that? It's not so.

And Jeb is still surrounded by his brother's continent of broken foreign policy advisors. An island of misfit political toys.

The house of Bush delenda est.

Check out Rick Santorum, Everybody.

My former Senator, Rick Santorum, is probably going to try running for president again next year. In the above video, at a National Security-related to-do in South Carolina, he is being questioned by a lady who believes President Obama is not a citizen (so he is, presumably, a Muslim Kenyan) who tried to nuke Charleston.

He does not challenge the parts that are so far out there the buses do not connect to them. He changes the subject from nuking Charleston (has anyone checked on Charleston, lately!?) to immigration.

What I want to know is: while I can see where it's probably a safety concern to challenge someone who might not be fully tracking with reality, and there is such a thing as manners, is there not any very well-mannered way to tell this "former teacher" that her head has very misfortunately been stuffed with bovine waste?

Does Jeb Bush Want to Be President?

After seeing some of the pans former FL. Gov. Jeb Bush got from his fumble-tongued national security speech (Beaucoup Haram? 200K ISIS fighters?) and taking note, as everyone did, that Bush's foreign policy team has significant overlap with his father's and brother's advisor-pool, I seriously wonder about this whole "Jeb Bush running for President".

The man has probably at least mulled over whether he's wanted to be president or not since his brother ran in 2000. That's a long time to be thinking about doing it. But getting elected is one thing, and actually being president is something quite different. No matter who advises him, once he's "the Decider", as his brother famously put it--he's really got to show he knows what he's doing.

He has every bit of hindsight available regarding his father's and brother's administrations--successes and failures alike. He has had the opportunity to audit the current president's administration to contrast how he might do things differently. But I'm not sure he's made use of those things, and that really bothers me because national security is kind of important, you know? I just think he's running because it's the "family business" and he's expected to--and that's not good reason enough.

The House Select Committee is Still on the Benghazi Case

 



This past Friday, the House Intelligence Committee released a report that dismisses many of the speculative claims about the performance of the Obama Administration regarding the events of 9/11/2012, while still allowing that security for our diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was not as good as it should have been.

 

This is why I think Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has it right when he suggests that the House Select Committee, which is on-going, shift its focus to what we can do in future to secure our diplomatic personnel abroad. I don't think it's any insult to the past to look forward about how we can correct the errors of the past. I'm not sure there's much more to be gained by combing over already picked-apart ground. What matters should be doing things better.

Some Kind of Mickey Mouse Organization?

I didn't really have a whole lot to add the the recent revelations of security lapses by the Secret Service, But this recent piece about departing Secret Service Director Julia Pierson gives me plenty of reason to think that her resigning is the right idea.  Here's a sample:

In her 18 months in charge, Pierson also became the subject of derision among some lower-level agents for accommodating the White House staff’s wishes for less-cumbersome security over the warnings of her tactical teams. 

In the spring, Pierson was irate at what she considered the excessive security measures her team had planned for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, which Obama hosted this summer, demanding that it dismantle extra layers of fencing and reopen closed streets, according to two agency supervisors. Supervisors who had mapped out the security plan said they were taken aback when Pierson, who worked during high school at Walt Disney World as a costumed character and park attendant, said: “We need to be more like Disney World. We need to be more friendly, inviting.”

It is not the business of the Secret Service to be "accomodating" to the wishes of White House staff (and I would bloody well like to know who those folks were) who wanted "less-cumbersome security". This president has had far more threats made against him, and the likelihood that some of them are dead serious should proportionately go up in their threat estimation. So I would far rather see a Director of the Secret Service take that stuff deadly seriously and push back.  And, with no disrespect intended to the security job done by the staff at Disney World, which in a sprawling entertainment environment has to deal with millions of visitors and numerous unique challenges--the comparison to security at Disney World and personal security detail of a world leader just ain't the same thing.

Pierson was brought in when there were some pretty serious lapses of judgement by agents on detail--but that meant she should have been enforcing discipline and refocusing the importance of that particular mission. If she was talking "Mickey Mouse", no wonder she's fresh out of Donald Duck.

But as an aside, it is very hard for me to point in any way to what the president does or doesn't say about the people who are charged to protect himself and his family. If anyone is expecting sharp criticism or direction coming from him particularly--think about what that means, Their job is their job--he isn't the Director of the Secret Service, he is, in part, their mission. If one can't see how that affects his ability to criticize the job they do for himself and his loved ones then I just don't know how to elaborate it.

So, this Secret Service Scandal--

I've been vaguely paying attention to this Secret Service/military partying with prostitutes scandal, because I have the feeling this probably has been going on for some time. It strikes me that there might just be a machismo factor to the behavior we're seeing here, and I don't really suspect that this is something new because of, for example, gays in the military (let's be honest--when all one has is a homophobia--every problem looks like a gay problem--Tony Perkins is just a weirdo on the subject).

Anyhow, I might as well weigh in with my theory--I think the Secret Service got to thinking they were like roadies or backstage security for a rock band instead of officers in charge of security for one of the most important offices we have--the presidency.  We call popular politicians "rock stars" sometimes, and there may even be political groupies for all I know--but that doesn't change the stakes. Politicians might be accessible to the press like never before and lionized and celebrated--but that doesn't change the security responsibilities of the Secret Service detail. They still are required to anticipate that people with political power are also people with particular vulnerabilities and security needs.  And that, in turn, means not letting the President, his family, and the American people down, by compromising their positions. In the olden days of the Cold War, I'm pretty sure SS guys were trained to anticipate a Commie spy under every garter belt.

Contrast that, with the current scandal, which was largely brought to light because a Secret Service agent disputed the fee for the services of a carnal entertainer. ZWUT?  This only makes sense if this guy thought he was a part of an entertainment staff-- "I'm with the band--I don't pay for it."

But the fuck with the idea that anyone in the Secret Service actually is "with a band". The president is not a "band", nor is his family,. And the protection is not merely from groupies and stalkers, but even terrorists and international intrigue.  They have to be prepared for the worst--not opening up the president, or anyone who they are supposed to be protecting, to a security problem. So this issue is a big one--

And yet, obviously, not one the president should have blame for--after all, he benefits from a crack SS team, not hard partying jerk-offs using foreign hookers and without accountability. Of course, he would rather his family have the most upright people guarding them.

This is such a dumb scandal.