There's No Vaccine For Stupid

Just a reminder that there are terrible, non-scientific people on the left as well as the right, and while climate change denial is certainly something that the Trump administration will be chastised over for decades, it looks like the Orange-elect is into eating from the anti-vaccine dumpsters as well.

Donald Trump will meet Tuesday with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent skeptic of vaccines for children, suggesting that the president-elect continues to believe a widely discredited theory that vaccines cause autism. 

The meeting was announced by a spokesman for the Trump transition team, Sean Spicer, who said that the two would discuss vaccines Tuesday at Trump Tower, in New York. 

Trump notably expressed support for the theory at a Republican presidential debate in 2015. 

“You take this little beautiful baby, and you pump . . .” he said of vaccinating children. “We had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2 years old, a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.” 

The comments were widely denounced by medical professionals who say that there is no evidence that vaccines lead to autism. In fact, the study that popularized the idea has been retracted and discredited as fraudulent. Multiple high-quality studies have found no link between vaccines and autism.

Trump was apparently very open to RFK, Jr's nonsense, so apparently we're now going to have a presidential commission on this idiocy.

President-elect Donald Trump asked Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental activist and skeptic of vaccines, to chair a presidential commission on vaccine safety, Kennedy said Tuesday. 

The two have questioned whether vaccines cause autism, a claim consistently debunked by medical professionals across the board. 

The commission will be designed "to make sure we have scientific integrity in the vaccine process for efficacy and safety effects," Kennedy told reporters after the meeting with Trump. 

Kennedy said Trump requested the meeting, and the president-elect "has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it. His opinion doesn't matter, but the science does matter and we ought to be reading the science and we ought to be debating the science."

Absolutely nothing good will come from this, mark my words.  If the official position of the Trump administration is that we shouldn't be vaccinating kids, then a lot of kids are going to get very sick and possibly die from things like measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough, which are all preventable by diseases.

Even holding this commission is a ruthlessly evil idea, as parents are going to get the idea that vaccinations aren't safe and will refuse to do so with their kids.

Trump is just ridiculously terrible, and he's not even president yet.

Cory Throws The Booker At Jeff

I've had my differences with Cory Booker in the past (there's zero chance you end up a US senator from New Jersey without Wall Street money getting involved) but it looks like he's willing to start taking on Trump, beginiing with his "esteemed Senate colleague" Jeff Sessions.

Sen. Cory Booker is set to make history this week when he testifies before the Judiciary Committee against Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination for attorney general in hearings that begin Tuesday morning. 

Booker's office said Monday that the Senate historian had been unable to find any previous instance of a sitting senator testifying against a fellow sitting senator nominated for a Cabinet position. 

Noting that "I'm breaking a pretty long Senate tradition," the New Jersey Democrat said Monday on MSNBC's "All In": "We've seen Jeff Sessions — that's Senator Jeff Sessions — consistently voting against or speaking out against key ideals of the Voting Rights Act, taking measures to try to block criminal justice reform." 

"He has a posture and a positioning that I think represent a real danger to our country," Booker said.

In 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee killed President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Sessions to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama after four former Justice Department colleagues testified that he had made racially offensive statements. 

Sessions, R-Alabama, turned the rejection into a launchpad for his political career. He was elected attorney general of Alabama before being elected in 1996 to the U.S. Senate, where he is considered among the more conservative members.

That's unheard of for a reason: Booker's not going to be making very many friends with this move. One has to wonder if he doesn't plan on being in the Senate too much longer, or if he has higher political aspirations.

Several other prominent African-American figures in addition to Booker also plan to testify against Sessions, including two members of the House: Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, a leader of the civil rights movement of the 1960s; and Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-Louisiana, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

The NAACP has also strongly opposed Sessions' nomination, calling him "a threat to desegregation and the Voting Rights Act."

According to prepared remarks obtained by NBC News, Sessions will testify that he understands "the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters." 

The only African-American Republican senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, said in a statement Monday that he would be supporting Session's nomination after placing "special emphasis" on the decision at a time of "racial and societal unrest like we have not seen in a generation." 

Scott said after doing his own homework, working with Sessions for four years and meeting with him personally, that he had determined Sessions to be a "consistently fair person" who is committed to upholding the Constitution.

I'm not under the naive impression that any of Trump's nominees will be blocked.  Frankly I expect Sessions to sail through and get plenty of Democrats voting for him, particularly those Democrats in red states like Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly.  To his credit, Ohio's Sherrod Brown says he'll already oppose Sessions regardless.  But I think he'll still end up getting at least 60 votes.

The one nominee who may actually be in trouble is Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, her hearing has already been delayed until next week over serious financial and ethical questions.

But we'll see what Booker can do here.

StupidiNews!

• Trump's choice for Attorney General, Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, now faces his Senate colleagues in hearings today, including Dem Sen. Cory Booker of NJ testifying against him.
• GOP Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz is vowing to reopen the House Republican investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails during her time as Secretary of State.
• Donald Trump plans to name his son-in-law Jared Kushner as Senior White House Adviser, in an unprecedented move that appears to violate federal ethics laws despite being unapaid.
• For-profit prison corporations are anticipating billions in revenue from Donald Trump's planned crackdown on undocumented immigrants in the US.
• President Obama says the momentum of green energy won't be stopped, despite what the incoming Trump administration would do.

Last Call For That Death Spiral Thing

Republicans are busy putting out press releases that they and they alone can save the "failing" health care sector by repealing Obamacare, but the reality in hospitals and doctor's offices and urgent care clinics across the country is that the GOP plan to repeal the law without an alternative will cause tens of billions in economic damage and hurt millions of Americans, and health care providers and insurance companies are now in a state of near-panic.

Hospital and health plan leaders talk in almost apocalyptic terms about what might lie ahead if Republicans abolish Obamacare without a blueprint for its replacement. 

Their doomsday scenario: Millions of people could lose their health care coverage, hospitals could hemorrhage cash and shocks to the $3 trillion-a-year health system could send ripples through the entire economy.

“That transition period is going to be like that slow-moving tsunami that we know is coming, and we can watch it and try to prepare for it — but in the aftermath of the tsunami, there’s devastating loss that we never could have planned for,” said Heidi Gartland, vice president for community affairs and government relations at Cleveland-based University Hospitals Health System. 

Hospitals estimate that repealing Obamacare could cost them $165 billion by the middle of the next decade and trigger “an unprecedented public health crisis" if sick people are unable to get care. Even before that happens, though, uncertainty about what might replace the law and how it could affect the bottom lines of hospitals, in particular, has spurred CEOs to cut spending. 

“Everybody is going to continue to belt tighten and take action fearing the worst is going to happen,” said William Conway, CEO of Detroit’s 1,300-physician Henry Ford Medical Group. 

That anxiety has already claimed casualties: The Advisory Board Company, which provides services to health care firms, announced last week that it is laying off 220 people because hospitals hit the brakes on spending following the GOP sweep. Providers warn the situation will worsen the longer Congress goes without passing a replacement as fears of mounting losses prompt decisions to close programs, trim staffs and curtail care.

The healthcare sector is already starting to weaken as a result.  Without knowing what's coming, the industry can't plan, won't hire, and is resorting to hunkering down until the storm is over.

Unfortunately, this storm is going to cost lives too, lives ruined by Republicans. It won't be mere statistics, either.

But this is what the GOP promised to do.  Following through on that promise is a lot harder than they realized of course. Vox's Sarah Kliff notes that repeal is starting to look very shaky in the Senate.

Republicans are struggling to maintain party unity on leadership’s preferred “repeal and delay” strategy. There are at least seven Republican senators who have expressed reservations about the idea of repealing Obamacare and setting a deadline a few years in the future to come up with a replacement. Three defections from the 52-member Republican Senate caucus would be enough to sink a repeal-and-delay bill, which would need 50 votes to pass. I expect this list of seven to grow, as there are still dozens of senators who haven’t voiced an opinion either way on the matter. 

Republican governors are trying to slow down Obamacare repeal. Governors who expanded Medicaid are starting to voice concern about the effect of repeal in their states. This includes Republican Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Rick Snyder of Michigan. “Our hospitals needed Medicaid expansion,” Kasich told reporters last week. “It has worked very well in this state.” 

The Republican Party is fracturing around Obamacare in ways we haven’t seen before. This is happening for a simple reason: It’s really, really hard to end health insurance benefits for 20 million Americans, especially when you don’t have a plan for what comes next. I still think repeal is the most likely outcome of this debate — it just doesn’t seen nearly as certain possibility as it did a month ago.

If Americans figure out the first thing the GOP does for them is take away their health insurance and access to health care, they are going to revolt as they did in 2006 and 2008.

But even if the GOP doesn't go through with repeal, the uncertainly may kill Obamacare anyway.

The Obama Machine Revs Up

President Obama will not be going quietly into that good night, no matter how many folks on the right (and left) wish he would just disappear and quietly take up painting like Dubya did.  The Obama campaign infrastructure is evolving into a network to train the new Democratic party leaders of tomorrow, and their first order of business is to get the ball rolling for 2018 and beyond.

Already, former aides are revamping Organizing for Action, the group formed out of his old campaign structure. No longer about backing up Obama’s agenda in the White House, it will be a nexus for training activists and candidate recruitment, reshaped both by Trump’s win and some of the factors that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss. 

Though OFA has been mostly quiet over the last two months and made no formal announcements, its Chicago headquarters has been filling up with new hires, including several old campaign aides, who are planning to focus on the mechanics of campaigns, from running Obama-style persuasion programs, integrating data and running paid canvassing operations. Though the first goal is designing the program for what they’ll aim to make hundreds of workshops nationwide, there’s already talk moving toward endorsing candidates. 

And Obama has identified a few issues that would draw him out directly: a Muslim ban, though he still considers the chances of that remote, or moves that would cut back on the protections he put in place for the children, known as “dreamers,” who were brought to the country illegally as minors and who’ve been living here since. 

“If he deports thousands of kids,” Obama has said several times in private meetings of late, according to people present, “I don’t know that I can sit on the sidelines.” 

Also potentially on the list: a move by Trump to unravel the Iran deal or the Paris climate accord, or the shape of an Obamacare repeal and replacement. 

“If things rise to the level where it’s a statement of who we are as a people and as a country, things that are important to him, then depending on the circumstances he will engage and he will talk,” said one of the people familiar with thinking about the post-presidency. “But this is now the moment where the next generation of Democratic or progressive leaders steps up and engages in the political fight, however defined and broadened.”

This is absolutely the right move here by President Obama and the Democrats.  Rather than crawl home and lick their wounds, or worse, approving Trump's agenda through "bipartisan cooperation", he's standing up to organize and to fight back.

I'd love to see workshops here in Northern Kentucky.  Democrats have gotten pummeled here, and it would be excellent to have some organizing resources to turn to.  Matt Bevin is expected to today wipe out the Bluegrass State's long union tradition with a few strokes of his pen.  Sign me up to start fighting back.

Checking Up On The Cabinet

The All-New Reince Priebus did his best Sunday to normalize the notion that Trump cabinet picks don't need background checks for ethical reasons, because these people are way too busy to be slowed down by your "ethics rules" and that should be good enough for America, so shut up.

Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Priebus on Sunday if the Trump administration would consider delaying the hearings until the background checks were complete.

"No," Priebus replied. "They have to get moving. I mean, they have to move faster. And they have all the information. These are people that have been highly successful in their lives. They need to move quicker."

"The fact is there's no reason," he continued. "I mean, it's the first week of January, they have all the details that they need, they have all the information that they need. It's no different from any other new administration coming in and the American people demand it."

"Change was voted for and change we will get."

Got that?  No reason for ethics checks, because shut up that's why.

Democrats need to put a stone cold stop to this idiocy, but I wouldn't count on them to be able to do much without at least some GOP defections in the Senate.  And I don't see that happening.  Why would Republicans stand up to Trump now?

StupidiNews!

• North Korea is warning President-elect Donald Trump that Pyongyang can launch ICBMs "at any time" even as the country appears to be opening the door to future bilateral talks.
• Federal workers are bracing for promised layoffs, pay cuts, and benefit reductions under President-elect Trump's campaign promises to freeze and even reduce federal hiring.
• The FBI has arrested a former Volkswagen executive on fraud conspiracy charges related to the company's diesel cheating scandal last year.
• China is extending an invitation to the incoming administration to join the country's international investment bank as a partner, something the Obama administration declined.
• Oakland, California is expected to become one of the first major US cities to pass local legislation restricting the use of digital surveillance and requiring local oversight for its use.

Empire State Of Voting

New York state and Gov. Andrew Cuomo have gotten a lot of flack for the state's convoluted voting rules, particularly in the wake of last year's primary. But that's another difference between red and blue states: red states want to make it more difficult and burdensome to vote, blue states want to make voting easier and more streamlined so as many people can participate as possible, and Cuomo is promising major voting reforms ahead of 2018's contests.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Sunday a new proposal meant to make it easier for all New Yorkers to vote, which will in turn shorten lines at the polls and increase accuracy when ballots are counted. That proposal is called the “Democracy Project.”

It will allow early voting and institute automatic and same-day voter registration, thus streamlining voter services and making it simpler for all eligible citizens to vote and eliminate possible voting inaccuracies.

“These proposals will modernize and open up our election system, making it easier for more voters to participate in the process and helping to make a more fair, more just and more representative New York for all,” Cuomo said in a news release.

New early voting policy will require every county to offer access to at least one early voting site during the 12 days before Election Day, according to a news release. At least eight hours on weekdays and five hours on the weekend will be devoted to keeping voting sites open for this purpose.

There must be one early voting site per 50,000 residents and the location must be chosen by the bipartisan county board of elections, according to a news release. Location will be determined based on accessibility and convenience.

Early voting aims to increase access to the polls and make it easier for people with commitments to take the time to vote. That also means shorter lines on Election Day and makes it easier for poll workers to deal with registration errors as they arise.

The project also aims to simplify DMV services by automatically sending voter information from DMV applications directly to the County Board of Elections, according to a news release. Those who do not wish to register can simply check an “opt out” box on their application.

Citizens can already register to vote at the DMV but often face a number of regulations that slow down the process and create errors on voter rolls. Automatic registration aims to improve the accuracy of voter rolls and registration lists, increase convenience for voters and election officials alike and reduce total costs associated with the process.

Same-day voter registration will also go into effect as part of the project. New Yorkers will be able to register and vote on the same day and avoid deadlines before Election Day that could potentially keep them from registering in time.

Imagine that.  Some simple fixes to get people registered so that they can participate in the voting process where they live, but I guarantee you Republicans are screaming bloody murder right now because they know they do better when fewer people are allowed to vote.

Again, in a representative democracy like our own, making rules to add burdens to the citizen in order to vote, rather than putting the onus on the state, is unconscionable.  The state, not the citizen, is responsible for running a smooth, free, and fair election.  I'm very glad to see Gov. Cuomo propose these measures and I definitely hope New York can implement them in time for 2018 midterms.

Good job.

Bibi B-busted B-big Time

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is in quite a bit of trouble after leaked recordings showing that he planned to strike a deal to help an Israeli newspaper by freezing out access to a rival publication.

Media tycoon Arnon Mozes is the businessman who negotiated a quid pro quo with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in conversations caught on tape that came to light on Sunday.

Haaretz reported Sunday that suspicions in the main corruption affair involving Netanyahu are backed by recordings documenting contacts between him and a businessman over mutual benefits.

According to Channel 2, several months ago Netanyahu offered Mozes, publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, a deal that would limit the circulation of the free daily Israel Hayom, Yedioth's top competitor and widely regarded as the prime minister's mouthpiece. In return, Mozes would make Yedioth's coverage more sympathetic to Netanyahu.

Israel Hayom, now Israel's largest newspaper, is owned and published by U.S. billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a close confidant of the prime minister.

Mozes was questioned in the case last week and released under certain conditions.

Channel 10 reported that the negotiations were an effort by Netanyahu to prevent Yedioth Ahronoth from publishing a story about his son Yair. The conversations were apparently recorded by Mozes, whose financial benefit from such a deal would be significant.

The taped conversations were brought to the attention of Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit months ago. Mendelblit and State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan believed that while the affair had far-reaching ramifications politically, its legal status was unclear, Channel 2 reported.

In August, Netanyahu said he was considering promoting a bill that would bar recordings of conversations without consent from all the parties involved.

So now we know what the bribery and fraud investigation rumors from last month about Netanyahu involved: a cover-up to protect his son and to get better press.

We'll see where this goes, but I'm betting Bibi is in trouble here.

Sunday Long Read: Justice Served

Texas Monthly writer Skip Hollandsworth gives us this week's Sunday Long Read, the story of Edwin Debrow, who in 1991 killed a cab driver in San Antonio at age 12, and was tried under Texas's brutal juvenile law.  Debrow has served 25 years of his 40 year sentence, has been denied parole ever since he reached adulthood, and has essentially spent his entire life in a maximum security facility.

Just after midnight on September 21, 1991, a San Antonio school teacher named Curtis Edwards was found sprawled across the front seat of a taxi that he drove part-time at night to earn extra money. He had been shot point-blank in the back of the head. It was a gruesome scene: blood and bits of brain were scattered throughout the car. A few days later, police announced they had made an arrest in the case. Edwards’s killer, they said, was a twelve-year-old boy named Edwin Debrow. Apparently, investigators said, Edwin had shot Edwards while attempting to rob him.

At the police department, a photographer from the San Antonio Express-News took a photo of Edwin as he was being escorted down a hallway by a uniformed officer and a detective. Edwin, who was just four feet eight inches tall and 79 pounds, was wearing a T-shirt, basketball shorts, and unlaced high-top tennis shoes. His face was peeking out of a suit coat that the detective had thrown over his head in hopes of protecting his identity.

Almost overnight, Edwin became one of Texas’s most notorious criminals. People were stunned that such a small child could have committed such a cold-blooded killing. A prosecutor for the Bexar County district attorney’s office called Edwin a “sick little monster.” In a speech addressing the problems of the inner city, President George H. W. Bush went so far as to single out Edwin, describing his behavior as “truly horrifying.”

Today, Edwin is 37 years old. He is five feet ten inches tall, and he weighs 170 pounds. He looks a little like the boxer Floyd Mayweather, and because of the exercises he does every day in his cell—endless numbers of push-ups, crunches, pull-ups, and leg lifts—he is built like him too, with broad shoulders, a tapered waist, and biceps the size of baseballs. His head is shaved, and his arms and chest are inked with tattoos. “When my mom comes to see me, she always says I still look young,” Edwin told me during one of our conversations. “But I know she’s only trying to make me feel better. I know I’ve got the prison look.”

“The prison look?” I asked.

He gave me a thin smile. “The look of someone who’s not going anywhere soon.”

Edwin has been behind bars since the day he was arrested: he is now more than halfway through a forty-year sentence that a juvenile court ordered him to serve as punishment for Edwards’s murder. Although he has been eligible for parole since 1999, the members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles have refused to release him, always citing the severity of his crime. If he continues to be denied parole, he will not be released until September 2031. He will be 52 years old.

For decades, the members of the criminal justice system have argued about what should be done with kids who commit violent crimes. Lawyers, judges, police officers, politicians, and victims’ rights advocates have debated whether lawbreaking youngsters should be treated as regular criminals or as misguided delinquents with potential for rehabilitation. Is the public better served by putting them in adult prisons and keeping them off the streets for years and years? Or does the experience of incarceration only make them more disturbed and even more dangerous?

In Texas the law allows for very strict punishment of juvenile offenders. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, of the 140,000 inmates now housed in its prisons, approximately 2,000 are there for crimes that they committed as juveniles, which state law defines as anyone under the age of seventeen. Nearly a hundred of those inmates committed their crimes when they were only eleven, twelve, or thirteen years old. Of that group, only two have served more time than Edwin. “I’m considered the bad seed, the worst of the worst, all because of one stupid, terrible thing I did when I was twelve,” he told me.

He took a deep breath and slowly let it out. “Why can’t people understand I’m not that twelve-year-old boy anymore? Why can’t I be given a second chance?”

Edwin Debrow did kill when he was twelve, but throwing a child in prison like this is unconscionable.  For him to still be in prison now is repugnant.  And yet odds are very good he will serve his sentence and have nothing waiting for him on the outside, no skills, no hopes of getting a job, no place to go.  He'll be a 52-year-old black man in Texas after serving 40 years in prison.

The death penalty would have been a kindness.

Russian To Judgment, Con't

In a finding that should surprise precisely no one, it seems Trump voters are not only ignoring the report on Russian interference with US elections, but are actively hostile towards the notion and consider it to be nothing more than "fake news".

“Sour grapes,” explained Bob Marino, 79, weighing in on the recent spycraft bombshell from the corner table of a local McDonald’s.

“Sour grapes,” agreed Roger Noel, 65, sitting next to him.

“Bunch of crybabies,” Reed Guidry, 64, offered from across the table.

The subject of conversation was the report released by United States intelligence chiefs on Friday informing President-elect Donald J. Trump of their unanimous conclusion that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered an extensive, but covert, cyberoperation to help Mr. Trump win the election. The Russians had hacked and leaked emails, unleashed “trolls” on social media and used their “state-run propaganda machine” to spread stories harmful to Hillary Clinton.

In Washington, the report was viewed as extraordinary, both for its timing, raising sharp questions about the president-elect’s legitimacy on the verge of his taking office, and for its assertions, describing the operation as Russia’s boldest effort yet to meddle with American elections, to spread discontent and to “undermine the U.S.-led democratic order.”

But interviews with Trump supporters here in Louisiana, a state the president-elect won by 20 points, and in Indiana, a state he won by nearly the same margin, found opinions about the report that ranged from general indifference to outright derision.

“From the parts of the report I’ve seen,” said Rob Maness, a retired Air Force colonel who twice ran for Senate here as Tea Party favorite, “it seems silly.”

There are genuine concerns about Russia’s cyberoperations, he said, but the notion that they changed the outcome of the election was absurd. (The report made no determination on how they affected the election.)

Of the comments he had seen from fellow Trump supporters on Facebook and in emails, he added, “90 percent of them are like, ‘What’s the big deal?’”

The Russians may have very well gotten involved, several people said. They added that kind of interference should be combated. But many assumed that foreign actors had long tried to play favorites in American elections, and that the United States had done the same in other countries’ elections. Even if the Russians did do it — which some were more willing to concede than others — what difference did it make? People did not need the Russians to make up their minds about Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump’s election opponent. Blaming her loss on the Russians was, as one Trump supporter here said, “just being sore losers.”

Again, there's nothing that Trump could do to lose support from Angry White America short of pledging to help those people like Obama and Clinton did.  If the Russians were involved, so what?  Even Republicans who are worried aren't going to lift a finger about it.  Trump's promised to help them and punish the Obama coalition.  That's all that matters.

As they watched their son skate with his Boy Scout group at the public ice rink in downtown Valparaiso, Monty and Mary Willis, both registered Republicans, considered the ramifications of the intelligence report.

“The idea of a fair election” had been placed in doubt, Ms. Willis said. “We were concerned about money being involved in the election. Now you’re talking about espionage.”

The Willises, who both work in real estate, might be Republicans, but they were not Trump voters. In fact, they had last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 2008, when Senator John McCain of Arizona ran. The party seemed to have changed in recent years, they said. And the incoming administration had them deeply worried.

“Our president being in cahoots with the Russian government?” Mr. Willis said. “Yes, I’m very concerned about that.”

In Louisiana, David Gubert, 56, chain-smoked Eagle 20 cigarettes in the cab of his pickup, with stacks of firewood for sale behind him in the bed. Like the Willises, he ruminated on what it would mean if the Russians had gotten involved, and possibly even swung the election.

But Mr. Gubert came to a different conclusion.

“If that’s what it took,” he said, “I’m glad they did it.”

We are now ruled by those who believe anything is permissible as long as those people are the ones made to suffer as a result.

Last Call For The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

In North Carolina, under GOP Gov. Pat McCrory, millions of people remained trapped in limbo with no access to subsidies for health insurance and no access to Medicaid. Under Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper however, that has now changed for nearly two-thirds of a million people.

The state moved formally Friday to make changes to the Medicaid program with the aim of adding hundreds of thousands of people to the government insurance plan despite opposition from state Republican leaders.

Gov. Roy Cooper announced earlier in the week he would seek to expand Medicaid as allowed under President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The details of the plan were made public Friday evening.

Proposed changes to the state plan must be posted on the state Department of Health and Human Services website for 10 days before a request goes to the federal government office that oversees Medicaid, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS. The state is accepting comments on the proposal.

Republican legislative leaders are already fighting it.

In a letter to CMS, legislative leaders said Cooper was violating the state constitution and three state laws. One of those laws, passed in 2013, prevents Medicaid expansion without legislative approval.

In a statement, Cooper said the 2013 law does not apply to the draft plan.

Expansion is no sure thing, and the statement from Cooper’s office is couched in several conditions.

“If CMS approves a change, if local matching money can be secured, and if state eligibility requirements are changed, then more than a half-million North Carolinians could receive health care beginning in January 2018,” Cooper’s office said.

Note that Republicans are screaming bloody murder over this, and quite frankly there's a very good chance that this expansion will never happen thanks to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump even should this somehow get past NC Republicans with their veto-proof margins to kill this cold.

But Cooper is doing the right thing by getting the process rolling.

That's the difference.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article125085989.html#storylink=cpy

Steal This Book, She Said

Former BuzzFeed News editor turned CNN Money investigative reporter Andrew Kaczynski is certainly leading off the network's new KFile project with a bang in 2017. Their first big scoop of the year turns out to be the fact that right-wing radio host and incoming Trump National Security Council mouthpiece Monica Crowley's 2012 book is chock-a-block with dozens of instances of plagiarism, some stolen wholesale from everyone from FOX News to the Mises Institute to National Review.

In the book, Crowley lifted an entire section on Keynesian economics from the IAC-owned website Investopedia.

In one instance, Crowley lists a variety of so-called "pork" items she claimed were part of the 2009 stimulus package. Many of the instances were copied wholesale from a conservative list of pork barrel spending, with some items dating back to the 1990s. Most of the copied instances were listed on a website for a podiatrist dating back to 2004.

A section on organized labor appears largely copied from a 2004 article by the libertarian think tank the Mises Institute. Another portion of her book on torture is copied from a Fox News article.

Sections of her book are repeatedly lifted from articles by National Review author Andrew C. McCarthy, who is a friend of Crowley’s. Lines in her book also match word-for-word the work of other columnists, including National Review’s Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, conservative economist Stephen Moore, Karl Rove, and Ramesh Ponnuru of Bloomberg View.

Crowley also lifted word-for-word phrases from the Associated Press, the New York Times, Politico, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the BBC, and Yahoo News.

Crowley has been accused of plagiarism before. In 1999, Slate reported a column by Crowley in the Wall Street Journal mirrored a 1988 article in Commentary, the neoconservative magazine.

"Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article," a Journal editor’s note said at the time. Crowley denied the charge at the time, saying, "I did not, nor would I ever, use material from a source without citing it."

Kacyznkisi brings his receipts, too, and includes all the instances he could find.

We're going to need more reporting like this, stuff where we remember that the leaders of this country and the people who work for them need to be held accountable.  Crowley should be let go, there's no way she can have a working relationship with the media as a spokesperson after stealing their work like this.

But we'll see who steps up to defender her among the right.

Russian To Judgment, Con't

Still plenty of folks, including our incoming leader, who are doing everything they can to try to deflect attention away from the fact that a hostile foreign power manipulated our elections. The loudest cries from the defenders of Putin have been "Show us the evidence! You can't trust the CIA! Let's see it!"

And lo, the CIA said "Here you go."

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.  

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. 

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. 

Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.  

Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.

The intelligent report is pretty clear about this analysis: Russia was up to no good, and they clearly decided that Trump was better for their interests, so much so that it was worth the risk of getting involved in influencing US elections.

Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin. 

Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties. 

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks. 

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying. 

Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences. 

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

So the plan was that if Trump couldn't win, that they would use WikiLeaks, Russia Today, Sputnik and a host of internet trolls to unload massive disinformation about the Clintons in order to destroy Hillary Clinton's ability to govern.  The plan was so successful however that it outright put Trump in the White House and the Russians were celebrating the fact.

Senior officials in the Russian government celebrated Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton as a geopolitical win for Moscow, according to U.S. officials who said that American intelligence agencies intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome. 

The ebullient reaction among high-ranking Russian officials — including some who U.S. officials believe had knowledge of the country’s cyber campaign to interfere in the U.S. election — contributed to the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow’s efforts were aimed at least in part at helping Trump win the White House.

My question is of course they couldn't have done this without Trump.  He's been very, very vocal in defending Putin and saying the Russians had nothing to do with it, and even after the classified briefing he got Friday he still doesn't believe it.

At this point I have to assume the Russians have a Sword of Damocles waiting for him, and he'll do anything they want in order to keep them from unloading what they know about him. The evidence is overwhelming that our incoming president has been compromised by a foreign power.

Mad Dog Bites Back

So it turns out when you want to hire a guy nicknamed "Mad Dog" to run the Pentagon that 1) he doesn't take constructive criticism very well at all and 2) he really doesn't like other people making decisions for him.  In other words, before Trump and Gen. James Mattis even take office as president and Secretary of Defense respectively, they're already fighting like, well, cats and Mad Dogs.

The honeymoon seems to be ending between retired Gen. James N. Mattis and Donald Trump’s transition team amid an increasingly acrimonious dispute over who will get top jobs in the Defense Department — and who gets to make those decisions. 

With only two weeks left before Inauguration Day and days before Mattis’s Senate confirmation hearing, most major Pentagon civilian positions remain unfilled. Behind the scenes, Mattis has been rejecting large numbers of candidates offered by the transition team for several top posts, two sources close to the transition said. The dispute over personnel appointments is contributing to a tenser relationship between Mattis and the transition officials, which could set the stage for turf wars between the Pentagon and the White House in the coming Trump administration. 

The Trump transition team was already considering candidates for a host of Defense Department top jobs when Trump announced Dec. 1 that he intended to nominate “Mad Dog” Mattis to lead the military. The Mattis pick was seen by Republicans around Washington as an indication that Trump would rely on senior and experienced officials to shape and implement his national security and foreign policies. Many “Never Trump” Republicans also thought this might be their way into service despite having opposed Trump in the GOP primary. 

Initially, both Mattis and the Trump team intended to engage in a collaborative process whereby Mattis would be given significant influence and participation in selecting top Pentagon appointees. 

But the arrangement started going south only two weeks later when Mattis had to learn from the news media that Trump had selected Vincent Viola, a billionaire Army veteran, to be secretary of the Army, one source close to the transition said. 

“Mattis was furious,” said the source. “It made him suspicious of the transition team, and things devolved from there.” 

Again, I can't overstress how ridiculous it is to have the President-elect and the Secretary-designate to be having this level of acrimony before either one is actually in the job.  And again, this is a fight over our nation's intelligence agencies as well.

One position that is a source of tension is undersecretary of defense for intelligence, a powerful post that overseas all Defense Department intelligence agencies, which include the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. 

Retired General Michael T. Flynn, President-elect Trump’s national security adviser-designate, was DIA director until he was sacked by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. following a dispute with then-Undersecretary for Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers. 

Mattis has rejected all of the names the Trump team has offered to be the top intelligence official in the department, another transition source said. Mattis is also unlikely to accept Trump’s top Pentagon transition landing team official, Mira Ricardel, as a top official. She was rumored to be in line to be undersecretary of defense for policy, a hugely influential job. 

“Let’s put it this way, he’s being very picky about the options presented to him,” said the source, who was not authorized to talk about internal deliberations.

So yes, this is already a serious personnel disaster.  Trump ultimately believes he's the smartest guy on Earth, it's why he won the election duh he's the smartest and best.  And yet he's already fighting with his Pentagon pick.

I expect this is a preview of what's to come, anyone who wasn't already a sycophant will be by the time Trump is done...or they'll be done.