June 11, 2017

MAY-HEM IN THE U.K.

Prime Minister Theresa May looks on during a general election campaign visit to a tool factory in Kelso, Scotland, on June 5, 2017.


Conservatives lose majority, prompting calls for May’s resignation.
Prime minister’s gamble on snap election backfires: ‘She’s in a very difficult place’

A projection based on final results in most districts showed Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservatives seven seats short of keeping their majority, while Labour was forecast to pick up dozens of seats.
May has decided against stepping down and probably will try to form a coalition government.
But it was not guaranteed that May would be allowed to stay on, given that the results represented a catastrophic outcome for Tories.

  • The Conservative Party will try to form a minority government with help from a party in Northern Ireland.

  •  Theresa May, high on good polling and anxious to unify her party behind a “hard Brexit” (involving leaving the EU’s trade and immigration agreements), called a snap election in spring in the name of selecting a Brexit negotiating team. [The Atlantic / Samuel Earle
  • But Brexit really wasn’t the topic of the election. Instead — after the Conservatives floated, then backpedaled on, a proposal to have seniors pay part of their medical care that was called the “dementia tax” — it became an election about social services in Britain. And that primed many voters, especially young people, to Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, who promised more funding to the National Health Service and tuition-free college. [NME / Mike Williams
Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain addressed the news media outside 10 Downing Street in London on Friday, announcing plans to form a minority government. CreditTim Ireland/Associated Press



Minority governments tend to be fragile and short-lived, and many expect that Mrs. May will be a lame-duck prime minister, that she may not last as long as a year and that she will not lead her party into another election.
For European Union leaders, who were expecting her to emerge with a reinforced majority, the uncertainty is unwelcome, especially as they try to prioritize issues such as climate change and their relationship with an unpredictable and unfriendly President Trump. There is also resentment that, once again, the British have complicated things out of political hubris and partisan self-interest.
----
Without question now, Britain is not ready for the negotiations, having spent the past year largely avoiding a real debate on the topic, other than a vague argument over the merits of a “hard Brexit” (as a clean break from the European Union is known), versus a “soft Brexit,” which would require more compromise.

An Upheaval Just as ‘Brexit’ Talks Begin


Mrs May faced open calls from her own MPs to 'consider her position' while a jubilant Jeremy Corbyn demanded she make way for him to become PM. But an ashen-faced Mrs May insisted the Conservatives were still the largest party with an expected 318 seats. She insisted the country needed a 'period of stability', adding: 'It is incumbent on us to ensure that we have that.' As the knives came out for Mrs May, former chancellor George Osborne lambasted her campaign performance as 'wooden' and her manifesto as a disaster, making clear he did not believe she could survive for long.


Daniel Leal-Olivas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The far-left firebrand, who many believed was headed for political oblivion, vastly outperformed expectations.Labour, under Jeremy Corbyn, ran what political analysts regard as an excellent and optimistic campaign, promising an end to austerity, more money for health and social welfare and free tuition

  • Corbyn is something of a throwback to the quasisocialist Labour Party of the 1970s — he wants to nationalize several industries. And he’s been a pretty dysfunctional leader of the party in Parliament. But many outsiders like him — he was elected because of a surge of new Labour Party members who joined to vote for him — which might have provided the motivation boost to spur the party toward a better-than-expected performance Thursday. [BBC Newsnight / Stephen Bush

“He’s had a brilliant campaign,” said Chuka Umunna, a senior member of the Labour Party who was among those openly disgruntled with Mr. Corbyn’s leadership last year. “Jeremy has fought this campaign with enthusiasm, energy, verve, has clearly loved being surrounded in the mix with people. That’s what politics is all about.”

And a striking contrast to Mrs. May, who was roundly criticized as wooden, robotic and manifestly uncomfortable when meeting voters.


When the election campaign started last month, few took the 68-year-old Mr. Corbyn seriously. But his unorthodox path fits a broader pattern of outsiders and, some would say, populists who are shaking up the political center in Western countries from left and right.
A five-time winner of the parliamentary beard of the year, Mr. Corbyn is Britain’s Bernie Sanders, another grizzled firebrand who inspired a generation of young voters to become politicized and, at least this week, turn out to vote. Mr. Corbyn’s fans call themselves Corbynistas.
Some already say that with his rejection of free-market economics and his quiet but more compromising approach to Britain’s exit from the European Union, he might not just change the Labour Party but also shift British politics more broadly.
Mr. Corbyn is a different type of politician, one happier on the campaign trail speaking to fellow activists through a megaphone than debating in the neo-Gothic splendor of the British Parliament with its arcane rules and obscure traditions.
In 2015, after more than three decades as a lawmaker, he had to be persuaded to stand for the party leadership, agreeing only reluctantly and in order to enable the left to present a candidate. No one, not even Mr. Corbyn himself, expected him to win. If ever there were an accidental leader, he is it.
During his 34 years in Parliament, Mr. Corbyn has essentially been in permanent opposition, not just to Mrs. May’s Conservative Party but also to his own Labour Party. He voted against the Iraq invasion, has opposed successive attempts to roll back civil liberties in the fight against terrorism and has long argued against deregulation and free-market reforms.
The biggest problem, he has said, is that since Margaret Thatcher established neoliberalism as the dominant economic consensus in Britain in the 1980s, Labour allowed the Conservatives to set the agenda on the economy and never offered an alternative narrative.
Mr. Corbyn offered that alternative: Under the banner of “For the Many Not the Few,” he vowed to nationalize the railroads, make universities free again and inject billions into the National Health Service by raising taxes on companies and the top 5 percent of income earners.
----
The causes that he has been passionate about are many, including the rights of Palestinians and South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle. But he has also come under fire for showing sympathy over the years to the Irish Republican Army and Hamas, the militant group ruling Gaza that is dedicated to eradicating Israel.
He and his inner circle have been accused of anti-Semitism for their strong criticism of Israel; of a latent anti-Americanism; of wanting to do away with Britain’s nuclear deterrent policy; and of being lukewarm toward NATO — accusations that he denies.
All of that faded into the background on Friday.
Mr. Corbyn, said Mr.  Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham. “has rewritten the rules, but he hasn’t won.” The question, he added, was “how viable is a Corbyn approach to winning power, rather than doing well in defeat?”
With his core vote for now still far to the left of Middle England, Mr. Corbyn seems unlikely ever to run Britain.


June 10, 2017





NY TIMES

Writers From the Right and Left React to Comey’s Testimony


AFP PHOTO / Brendan Smialowski




Comey Says Trump Tried to Derail Inquiry and Accuses the White House of ‘Lies’



  • In Senate testimony, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, offered a plain-spoken assessment of a president whose conversations unnerved him from the day they met.
  • His testimony squarely raised the question of whether President Trump tried to obstruct justice.



The way Comey understood his conversations with the president, Trump asked Comey for three things:
1.His loyalty while appearing to threaten his job security.
2.To “lift the cloud” of any perception the president was under investigation
3.To drop the FBI's investigation into Trump's fired national security adviser Michael Flynn.
“The ask was to get it out that I, the president, am not personally under investigation,” Comey said.
But, Comey testified, Trump did NOT ask him to drop the FBI's broader investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump's campaign helped.
Comey also declined to give a legal judgment on whether Trump obstructed justice or whether he colluded with Russia, saying that's up for the FBI and special counsel to investigate.
Comey thinks the president is a liar
The way Comey tells it, the first time he met Trump, Comey got the heebie-jeebies — for a whole bunch of small reasons but nothing in particular.
“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting,” Comey said, as to why he left Trump Tower, hopped in an FBI car, opened a laptop and started writing down every detail he could recall about his first meeting with the president. “It led me to believe that I gotta write it down, and I gotta write it down in a detailed way. … I knew that there might come a day where I might need a record of what happened, not just to defend myself and FBI and the integrity of our situation, and the independence of our function.”
Comey also said the president lied about why he fired him:
“The administration then chose to defame me — and, more importantly — the FBI by saying the organization was in disarray and that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.”
The way Trump handled Comey's firing is what prompted Comey to speak out.


After Trump's tweet, Comey said he couldn't stay silent.
“I woke up in the middle of the night Monday [thinking] that there might be corroboration for our conversation,” Comey testified. “And my judgment was that I needed to get that out in the public square. So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of [my memos] with a reporter.”
 Democrats are pretty sure Comey's firing is the key to what the president did wrong.
----
 Republicans are critical of why Comey didn't speak up sooner.
The president never should have cleared the room,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) of a key Oval Office private meeting between Comey and Trump. “And he never should have asked you to let [the investigation into Flynn] go.
“But I remain puzzled by your response. Your response was: 'I agree that Michael Flynn was a good guy.' You could have said: 'Mr. President, this meeting is inappropriate, this response could compromise the investigation.'"
Comey testified that he was “stunned” the president was asking him to drop an investigation and, in retrospect, he probably should have been more firm with the president. But he just wanted to say something — anything — to end the “awkward” conversations.
And, Comey said, he doesn't regret keeping the president's conversations within a tight circle: "No action was the most important thing I could do to make sure there was no interference in the investigation."
Senators Richard M. Burr, right, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat. CreditAl Drago/The New York Times
  • We didn’t learn a ton of new information, strictly speaking. One highly notable exception: Comey alluded to not-yet-public information that led him to believe Attorney General Jeff Sessions would need to recuse himself from the FBI’s investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. [Business Insider / Josh Barro
jeff sessions

Associated Press/Susan Walsh
  • (Based on what he proceeded to tell senators in a closed-door briefing Thursday afternoon, it looks like the information in question is that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak more times than he’d admitted to — and left all of those meetings out of his confirmation hearings and vetting documents.) [Vox / Dara Lind and Tara Golshan
  • But the heart of the hearing was Comey building a case that President Donald Trump, either out of malice or ignorance, repeatedly attempted to violate the FBI’s independence. It was a case that required a pitch-perfect performance in the role of “upstanding FBI agent,” and Comey nailed it. [Washington Post / Alyssa Rosenberg
  • Comey’s performance was probably sincere, but it’s important to remember that he knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s a seasoned operator within government structures. He’s trying to protect the reputation of the agency he formerly led against allegations that it’s mishandled both the 2016 election and the Trump administration. [The Intercept / Mattathias Schwartz and Ryan Devereaux
  • The case that Trump actually committed obstruction of justice wasn’t really strengthened by Comey’s testimony, which is to say, it’s still debatable. What’s less debatable is that Trump acted wrongly. One legal expert described it as “lawful, but awful.” [MSNBC / Alex Seitz-Wald and Ken Dilanian
  • At the end of the day, the legal argument is kind of irrelevant. The body that would be holding Trump to account would be Congress, if it decided to impeach him. Congress can impeach someone without charging them of a formal federal crime. But this Congress still appears profoundly uninterested in doing anything of the kind.

 Cheriss May/Sipa USA/AP

“The president’s new at this,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said. While playing up Trump’s ­naivete is one strain of his political defense, legal analysts said it could also be a criminal defense.

For at least one day, the president exhibited restraint on Comey at the urging of his lawyers and advisers.



June 8, 2017

TOMORROW, COMEY TALKS,




Comey


I need loyalty’: James Comey’s riveting prepared testimony about what Trump asked him, annotated



By Amber Phillips
Holy …. word I can't say in a family newsletter. James Comey just dropped a bomb on President Trump.
Ahead of the fired FBI director's testimony Thursday to Congress about his conversations with Trump, the Senate Intelligence Committee released Comey's seven-page statement detailing every single time the president asked him about the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump's campaign helped.
Ahead of the fired FBI director's testimony Thursday to Congress about his conversations with Trump, the Senate Intelligence Committee released Comey's seven-page statement detailing every single time the president asked him about the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump's campaign helped.
And forget meddling by Russia. Comey was concerned that Trump was meddling in the FBI's independent investigation into Russia. Specifically, Comey details, Trump appeared to be trying to get the FBI to lay off its investigation into Trump's now-fired national security adviser, Michael Flynn.
Until this point, we've only heard secondhand accounts of these conversations. But this is the first we're hearing about them from Comey — and we'll hear more Thursday when he testifies in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We annotated Comey's entire statement here (and if you only click on one thing, make it that.)



Comey testifying in July. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


Here are the top lines:
“My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.” — This is how Comey describes a dinner Trump invited him to — just the two of them — on Jan. 27.
At that dinner, Comey said, Trump asked him this: “A few moments later, the President said, 'I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.' I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.”
At a Feb. 14 Oval Office meeting, after everyone else had left the room: “The door closed. The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, 'He is a good guy and has been through a lot.' He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, 'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.' I replied only that 'he is a good guy.' "
In an April phone call: “On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I 'get out' that he is not personally under investigation.
Comey says Trump went on to say in that call: "'Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.' I did not reply or ask him what he meant by 'that thing.' "
A month later, Trump fired Comey.
What we still don't know
Comey's testimony is absolutely remarkable for the level of detail, the candor and the implications it raises for the president. Mostly: Did Trump obstruct justice?
We don't know that. And Comey's testimony raises a lot of questions that senators will be sure to ask him tomorrow, like:
If you were so concerned about Trump's actions, why didn't you tell anyone about it, like your boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions?
Why are you telling basically the whole world all of this now, after Trump fired you?
Why should we trust your recollection, given you misstated a key fact about Hillary Clinton's emails last time you testified to Congress? 

RUSSIAN CYBERATTACKS ON U.S VOTING SOFTWARE.

Lintao Zhang/Pool/Getty Images
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software 

A top-secret report from the National Security Agency, which was leaked to The Intercept, concluded that agents of the Russian government attempted to directly interfere with U.S. voting software before the 2016 presidential election.
  • “Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election.”

  • The report states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks.

  • “The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishmentsHowever, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.”
 A government contractor has been charged with passing along the NSA document to the Intercept. Devlin Barrett reports: “Reality Leigh Winner was accused of gathering, transmitting or losing defense information — the first criminal charge filed in a leak investigation during the Trump administration. Winner was arrested Saturday and the case was revealed Monday. ... According to court documents, Winner had a top-security clearance as an active-duty member of the Air Force from January 2013 until February of this year.”

An Instagram image of Reality Leigh Winner, 25, who was charged with sending classified material to a news website. Creditvia Reuters



  • The Intercept article relied on a leaked top-secret NSA report put together just last month. And sure enough, mere hours after the article went live, the Justice Department announced the charging of Reality Winner (that's really her name), a 25-year-old working in Georgia for the NSA contractor Pluribus International Corporation, for "removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet." Winner had been arrested this past Saturday, before the Intercept article’s release. [Justice Department] . According to court documents, Winner had a top-security clearance as an active-duty member of the Air Force from January 2013 until February of this year.”
  • Of course, it’s very possible the government is not telling the truth. The government lies about classified stuff all the time! In a statement, the Intercept noted, “It is important to keep in mind that these documents contain unproven assertions and speculation designed to serve the government’s agenda and as such warrant skepticism. Winner faces allegations that have not been proven. The same is true of the FBI’s claims about how it came to arrest Winner.” [The Intercept
  • In a Twitter thread, Barton Gellman, a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner who broke the Edward Snowden leak story for the Washington Post, strongly condemned the outlet’s handling of the story, saying it was a “catastrophic failure of source protection. … Everyone makes mistakes, but this was a bad one.” [Barton Gellman
  • So what do we know about the leaker? She served as a linguist in the Air Force for six years, and speaks Pashto, Farsi, and Dari. And her social media presence suggests she's a strong opponent of President Trump, marking election night by tweeting, "Well. People suck," and commenting on Trump's travel ban that "the most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the white house." [CNN / Madison Park
  • The charges Winner faces could lead to up to 10 years in prison, but typically leak prosecutions result in sentences more like one to three years. Notably, this is the first criminal leak case under Trump, who's been extremely vocal in his displeasure at how his administration leaks like a sieve. [NYT / Charlie Savage
  • As for the actual substance of the leak, the reporters were clear to state that there's no evidence Russia hacked actual voting machines or altered tallies in any way whatsoever. But it's a reminder that our voting systems are vulnerable, and that election integrity would be improved if 100 percent of votes resulted in a paper ballot, whether it's printed from a touchscreen machine or filled out with a pencil or what have you. [Vox / Timothy B. Lee​] 

CRAZY LIKE A FOX?

Mike Theiler/Reuters)

 Trump signals to his base that he is a man of action



Some have called him crazy. He thinks he’s crazy like a fox.
Let’s dispense once and for all with the fiction that Donald Trump doesn’t have a strategy. It may be a deeply-flawed strategy for reasons the neophyte president is not yet savvy enough to appreciate, but make no mistake: there is a strategy.

The conventional wisdom around Washington is that Trump is being impulsive as he disregards the counsel of his lawyers, who are correctly warning him that the travel ban may not survive a Supreme Court review if he continues to talk about it the way he does.

Yet the president has now explicitly called for a “TRAVEL BAN” five separate times on Twitter over the past four days. Undercutting the spin that he was just reacting to a morning cable segment he saw on TV before coming downstairs to work, his social media team posted a video on Facebook (an account he doesn’t personally control) that featured the tweets set to dramatic music.

If Trump truly cared about the underlying ban and wanted it to be in place for the country’s security, as he claims, he would not be speaking so freely. The billionaire businessman has been mired in litigation off and on for decades and has demonstrated an ability – when his own money was at stake – to be self-disciplined.

The only explanation, then, is that he cares less about winning the case than reassuring his base. The number of posts reflects the degree to which Trump thinks the travel ban is a political winner. He is trying to signal for his 24 million Facebook fans and 31.7 million Twitter followers that he’s fighting for them, regardless of what the judges, the media and the Democrats say. As Trump put it this morning:

 Bigger picture, the president is trying to maintain his populist street cred and show his true believers that he’s not going wobbly on them after five months in Washington, despite back-tracking on more of his campaign promises than he’s kept.

Trump has always been a flashy show horse. Why would anyone think a septuagenarian is suddenly going to buckle down to become a work horse? As a developer, biographers and former associates say, he consistently cared more about the gold-plated façade than the foundation. This is why Trump could obsess about how the lobbies of his properties looked, even as his business ventures careened toward bankruptcy under the weight of bad loans and poor bookkeeping. (Marc Fisher explored this dynamic in February.)

With his agenda imperiled, Trump increasingly seems determined to create an aura of effectiveness in the hopes that core supporters already inclined to support him won’t be able to tell the difference between optics and substance. Remember, this is the same candidate who once boasted that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his voters would stick with him.

Consider this: “Trump employed all the trappings traditionally reserved for signing major bills into law as he kicked off ‘infrastructure week’ on Mondaythe stately East Room full of dignitaries, a four-piece military band to serenade, celebratory handshakes and souvenir presidential pens for lawmakers, promises of ‘a great new era’ and a ‘revolution’ in technology. Yet the documents Trump signed amid all the pomp were not new laws or even an executive order. They were routine letters to Congress, relaying support for a minimally detailed plan in Trump’s budget to transfer control of the nation’s air traffic control system to a private nonprofit group,” the Los Angeles Times’s Noah Bierman reports.

But low-information voters may not be able to tell the difference when they see the b-roll of the ceremony on TV or an image in the paper.

It follows a pattern of Trump over-promising and under-delivering: “He touted the unveiling of his tax overhaul in April but released only a one-page set of bulleted talking points,” Noah writes. “Just last week, he tweeted that his tax bill is proceeding ‘ahead of schedule,’ though he has submitted no bill to Congress … Trump held a Rose Garden ceremony in May to celebrate House passage of a bill to repeal Obamacare … even as Republicans in the Senate served notice that the House bill was unacceptable. His promised ‘beautiful wall’ on the southern border is not yet on a drawing board. Likewise, many of the executive orders Trump has signed failed to live up to the president’s rhetoric.”

Is this strategy gimmicky and cynical? Absolutely. Does it work? For millions of people, yes.


----

-- Here’s the rub: There are some fresh signs that Trump’s act is wearing thin. While Trump’s floor of support has thus far stayed surprisingly high, the percentage of Americans who “strongly” approve of the president has continued to slip – from 30 percent earlier in the spring to about 20 percent now.

-- More and more GOP lawmakers are also getting sick and tired of either defending the president or dodging questions about his latest provocative statement. “Trump’s refusal to disengage from the daily storm of news — coming ahead of former FBI director James B. Comey’s highly anticipated public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday — is both unsurprising and unsettling to many Republicans (on the Hill), who are already skittish about the questions they may confront in the aftermath of the hearing,” Robert Costa reports on the front page of today’s Post. “In particular, they foresee Democratic accusations that Trump’s exchanges with Comey about the FBI probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign were an effort to obstruct justice. Some Republicans fear that Trump’s reactions will only worsen the potential damage.”