Trump's Damaging Trump Tower Admission

I have noted before how Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, is a defense attorney's worse nightmare. He runs his mouth incessantly - changing his lies each time he opens his mouth - and will not listen to advisers, and believes that he is smarter than anyone else (much as Hitler viewed himself as smarter than his top generals).  As a result, Trump has had great difficulty in securing top legal talent and has found himself at times represented solely by Rudy Giuliani - who was kicked out of his own top tier firm because of his representation of Trump - and Jay Sekulow whose main career path has been representing extreme right wing Christian causes and ties to Pat Robertson.  Now, in a tweet Sunday morning, Trump has seemingly admitted that the June, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower was aimed at conspiring with Russian and accepting things of value from foreign nationals - all things that violate federal election laws and raise frightening national security concerns.  Here are excerpts from a piece in The Atlantic:

In an attempt to defend his son Donald Trump Jr. on Sunday, President Donald Trump may instead have incriminated him—and himself.

Responding to a Washington Post report that he is increasingly concerned about his eldest son’s legal exposure, [Trump] the president denied that claim in a tweet Sunday morning: Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

Both Trump and Trump Jr. have at times in the past denied that the purpose of the June 9, 2016, meeting was to get damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but [Trump] the president has now flatly acknowledged it. Despite the limitations of the medium, [Trump] the president packed a great deal of potential trouble into less than 280 characters.

First, he seems to proceed from the assumption that by declaring the purpose legal, that makes it so, when in fact the acknowledgement points to the ways the meeting may have broken federal laws.

Second, by contradicting his earlier claims, the president again underscores his prior dishonesty. This is not just a matter of public trust: The changing accounts also get at accusations that the president obstructed justice.

Finally, the tweet is riddled with internal contradictions. If the president is unconcerned about his son, why is he tweeting angrily about the story? And if what happened was entirely legal, why is he so quick to deny that he knew about the meeting?
When The New York Times first reported on the existence of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, in July of last year, Trump Jr. issued a statement insisting it had been focused only on Russian adoptions. Faced with emails that showed Trump Jr. had been told to expect dirt on Clinton, he was forced to concede that that was not true.

Sunday’s tweet is the most direct statement yet that the purpose of the June 2016 meeting was to get damaging information from Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who has deep ties to the Kremlin. Trump Jr. had also been told in an email ahead of the meeting that the government of President Vladimir Putin supported his father’s candidacy. But declaring the meeting legal does not make it so. Over the last week, the president and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani have focused on the claim that “collusion” with the Russians, or anyone else, is not a crime per se.

That may be true, but as Bob Bauer explains in Lawfare, accepting anything of value from Russians could easily fall afoul of laws that ban accepting electoral assistance from foreign nationals.

[Trump] has tweeted out an apparent admission that his son intended to break campaign-finance laws.

Sunday’s tweet connects with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice, too. Roughly three weeks after the Times initially revealed the June 2016 meeting, the Post reported that the president had dictated his son’s initial, false denial while flying home from Europe on Air Force One. That lie has created a cascading series of problems.

His flip-flop raises further questions about whether he intended to misdirect investigators.

More broadly, the president’s repeated dishonesty about the June 2016 meeting undermines the credibility of every statement he makes about the meeting. Although the president and his son—the latter under penalty of perjury—have both said that Trump Sr. only learned of the June 2016 meeting last year, Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen last week claimed that the president was aware of the meeting before it happened. Why should anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt now?

The implication is that the president wasn’t even honest with his attorneys about his role in dictating the statement. Has Trump withheld any other damaging information from his attorneys? Meanwhile, even as Mueller is reportedly poring over Trump’s Twitter feed as part of the obstruction inquiry, the president continues to provide new fodder. Tweets like Sunday’s seem intended to dig out of a hole, but in practice they threaten to dig deeper.

[Trump's] The president’s admission about the Trump Tower meeting comes at a moment of high tension, even by the standards of this administration.

Trump’s public appearances and utterances give an impression of a man who is increasingly agitated and concerned about the Mueller inquiry. And for good reason: Several of Trump’s legal troubles are converging at the moment. The trial of Paul Manafort continues this week in northern Virginia.

Cohen’s legal troubles threaten Trump as well. The former aide has not been charged with any crimes, but he’s embroiled in controversy over payments to two women who allegedly had affairs with Trump. Not only has Cohen signaled a willingness to offer damaging information about Trump, but prosecutors in New York have also subpoenaed the longtime Trump Organization moneyman Allen Weisselberg.

For Trump to even address the threat to his “wonderful son” is an unusual show of vulnerability for a man who tries to project unstinting strength. Yet whenever he has tried to shield Trump Jr., it has only caused grief. The statement [Trump] the president dictated aboard Air Force One has become a piece of the obstruction investigation, while Sunday’s tweet could incriminate Trump Jr. It’s said that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client. A son who allows Donald Trump to be his advocate may be in even worse shape.

Giuliani: "Spygate" Is Fraudulent "PR" in Anticipation of Impeachment

Only in Trump world do outright lies equate to "PR spin".  What's frightening is than so many Republicans believe the lies - which is part and parcel with the dumbing down of Republican voters and explains why the GOP is having increasing difficulty retaining college educated voters from key suburban districts.  At some point, those who recognize the unending parade of lies just can't continue to hold their noses and vote Republican.  The lying has gone on for years now, but Der Trumpenfurher has taken lying to height heretofore unimaginable in American politics and reminiscent of the lies one saw in Nazi German, China under Mao, or during the darkest days of the former Soviet Union.  Amazingly, Trump consigliere, Rudi Giuliani - who was booted by his law firm due to his outrageous and untrue statements - admitted on national TV that Trump's "spygate" myth is all a lie and is "PR" aimed at anticipated moves to impeach Trump as the Mueller investigation exposes the behavior of Trump and his minions - and hopefully Mike Pence - during the 2016 presidential campaign and since.  New York Magazine looks at Giuliani's more or less admission that Trump's defenders are knowingly lying:  

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on Sunday that the president and his allies’ attempts to discredit the Mueller investigation — including the most recent so-called ‘Spygate’ controversy — are part of a public relations campaign aimed at staving off impeachment. “It is for public opinion,” the former New York mayor admitted during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union. And while trying to shape public opinion is the rarely acknowledged goal of any presidential administration, what Giuliani said next was unique to Trump’s: “Because eventually the decision here is going to be impeach or not impeach.”

Giuliani’s comment came amid pressure from host Dana Bash to acknowledge that he and Trump were using a “very specific, very political strategy to undermine [the Mueller] investigation,” highlighting how a recent poll revealed a 15 percent drop in the number of Republicans who wanted Trump to testify in the probe. Bash and Giuliani had already talked about the unfounded “Spygate” allegation by Trump and his allies that the FBI had installed a spy in the Trump campaign to set up for collusion charges. (The FBI had actually warned Trump that Russia was trying to infiltrate his campaign.)

Asked to confirm that these efforts to discredit the Mueller probe were just a political tactic, Giuliani first demurred, . . . . Then Bash specifically cited the ‘Spygate’ claims and how no evidence had been offered to support them, and noted to Giuliani that he was both an experienced politician and a lawyer who clearly understood that the Trump team could feel free to attack the Russia investigation, since Mueller and his team would not be able to publicly defend themselves.

The whole interview was a ranging, befuddled affair, as most of Giuliani’s media appearances now tend to be regardless of how much oversharing he does.

Before acknowledging the PR angle, Giuliani clearly tried to reference ‘Spygate’ as much as possible, using the word six times, and acting as though he was astonished by the allegations. He also tried to repeat Trump’s lie that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted the FBI placed a spy in the Trump campaign — which Bash corrected him on.

He also suggested the Justice Department’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals for meddling in the 2016 presidential election was “phony” and was only meant to impress the media.

I'm sorry, but anyone with half a brain who isn't merely motivated by Trump's open racism and /or pandering to Christofascists ought to denounce this campaign of lies.  And if they failed to do so, it speaks volumes about them, none of it good.  That Giuliani's law firm - which has a impeccable reputation - threw him out ought to speak volumes to anyone with a brain.

The Real Scandal: FBI Cover Ups and Connections to the Trump Campaign

At numerous times I have vented my frustration with much of the mainstream media and the utter irresponsibility that motivates far too many wrongly named "journalists."  Many are little better than gossips who care more about quick sensation and anything other than serious policy issues.  This complaint extends to both the TV media where most anchors are selected based on looks rather than any requirement of  intelligence - much same way as Donald Trump picks women to marry - and to much of the print and digital media.  This year's height of irresponsible reporting has swirled around Hillary Clinton's e-mail server even as Donald Trump's possible connections to a hostile foreign dictator gets only brief, passing mention.  Now, through Rudy Giuliani's loose lips, we learn that some in the FBI have been passing information to the Trump campaign.  A piece in Vox looks at the irresponsible reporting while a piece in Huffington Post looks at FBI dalliances with Donald Trump.  Here are highlights, first from Vox:

In total, network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.

This is unfortunate because emailgate, like so many Clinton pseudo-scandals before it, is bullshit. The real scandal here is the way a story that was at best of modest significance came to dominate the US presidential election — overwhelming stories of much more importance, giving the American people a completely skewed impression of one of the two nominees, and creating space for the FBI to intervene in the election in favor of its apparently preferred candidate in a dangerous way.

When Hillary Clinton took office as secretary of state, she, like most people, already had a personal email account. Like most people who started a federal job in 2009, she was also disheartened to learn that the then-current state of federal IT departments was such that she could not connect her personal smartphone to a State Department email address. If she wanted ready access to both her email accounts, she would need to carry two smartphones.

Everyone working in government felt that this was kinda bullshit, but nobody could really do anything about it.

Clinton decided to do something about it. Namely, she told her top aides to just email her at her personal address so she could keep using whichever devices she wanted. This violated an internal State Department policy directive, known as a Foreign Affairs Manual, which stated that while it was okay to use personal digital devices to do work occasionally, “normal day-to-day operations” should be conducted on standard State Department equipment. Clinton chose to ignore this guideline and because she was the boss nobody could stop her. Career foreign service officers and other State personnel have every right to be peeved that Clinton opted out of an annoying policy rather than fixing the underlying issue, but it’s hardly a matter of overwhelming public concern.

And, indeed, it turns out Colin Powell also used a private email address for routine work.
Using a private server violates that rule, but so would using a Gmail address or simply checking your State.gov email address from your personal laptop rather than a Department-issue one.

There are two possible interpretations here. One is that Clinton hatched the private email account plan as an elaborate dodge of federal record-keeping laws, but then months before the public became aware of the server’s existence complied with requests to turn them over. The other is that the federal records rule on the book was antiquated and a bit absurd, requiring officials to turn over paper copies of emails for no good reason, and simply got ignored out of sloppiness.

After Hillary left office, the State Department told her she had to turn all her work-related emails over to them, so she tasked a legal team with determining which emails were work emails and which were not. She turned the work emails over because that’s what she was legally required to do. She deleted the others, presumably because she did not want Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz to rummage through her inbox leaking whatever they happened to find amusing to area journalists.

Now, is it possible that Clinton’s legal team simply decided to entirely disregard the law and delete work-related emails?

In some sense, sure. But there’s no evidence that this happened. Generally speaking, in life we assume it would be moderately difficult to hire a well-known law firm to destroy evidence for you without someone deciding to do the right thing and squeal.

It’s precisely because nothing about the basic setup of the email account was in any way wrong that the investigation ended up focusing on the question of mishandling classified information.

Almost all of the relevant statutes require an intent to mishandle classified information in order to bring a prosecution, a standard that Clinton’s conduct clearly does not meet. Critics have thus chosen to focus on 18 USC § 793, a statute that sets a lower “gross negligence” standard.

However, as Jack Goldsmith, one of the top lawyers in George W. Bush’s administration explains, such a prosecution “would be entirely novel, and would turn in part on very tricky questions about how email exchanges fit into language written with physical removal of classified information in mind.”

This legal analysis is important because it makes it clear that even if the Weiner laptop emails aren’t simply client-side copies of the exact emails the FBI already has, there is essentially no chance it will change the ultimate verdict. The reason Clinton isn’t getting locked up is that there was no malign intent. Finding another email with classified information on it won’t change that conclusion.

Network newscasts have, remarkably, dedicated more airtime to coverage of Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined.  Cable news has been, if anything, worse, and many prestige outlets have joined the pileup. One malign result of obsessive email coverage is that the public is left totally unaware of the policy stakes in the election.

Clinton broke no laws according to the FBI itself. Her setup gave her no power to evade federal transparency laws beyond what anyone who has a personal email account of any kind has. Her stated explanation for her conduct is entirely believable, fits the facts perfectly, and is entirely plausible to anyone who doesn't simply start with the assumption that she's guilty of something. . . . Given Powell’s conduct, Clinton wasn't even breaking with an informal precedent. 

As for the Trump moles in the FBI, her are highlights from Huffington Post:

Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he knew the FBI planned to review more emails tied to Hillary Clinton before a public announcement about the investigation last week, confirming that the agency leaked information to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Giuliani has bragged about his close ties to the FBI for months, mentioning in interviews that “outraged FBI agents” have told him they’re frustrated by how the Clinton investigation was handled. And two days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency was reviewing the newly uncovered emails, Giuliani teased that Trump’s campaign had “a couple of surprises left.” 

“You’ll see, and I think it will be enormously effective,” he said in an interview with Fox News. 

All of this has led to suspicion that someone in the FBI is leaking information to Giuliani and the Trump campaign. The Daily Beast’s Wayne Barrett explored those suspicions on Thursday, detailing how Giuliani’s ties to the agency date back to his days as a U.S. attorney in the 1980s.

Giuliani insisted he had nothing to do with Comey’s decision to announce the probe prior to Election Day ― a move that both Republicans and Democrats have condemned. He also insisted his information comes from “former FBI agents.” 

Trump in Trouble Over "Second Amendment" Threat to Hillary Clinton

As I write this post, Rudy Giuliani is mouthing a bullshit explanation for Trumps remark seemingly encouraging his NRA extremist supporters to use violence against Hillary Clinton in order to stop her from winning the presidential election in November.  If one watches the video clip of Trumps remarks, it is beyond clear that Trump was NOT saying what Giuliani is now trying to put in Trump's mouth.  If suggesting the assassination of one's opponent isn't the final straw for the Republican Party to remove Donald Trump from the position of its standard bearer, then the GOP truly deserves to die and die quickly.  First these highlights from Politico:

Donald Trump on Tuesday said "the Second Amendment people" may be the only way to stop Hillary Clinton from getting to appoint federal judges if she wins the presidential election in November.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said as an aside while smiling. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”

Trump was speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, where he repeated his regular claim that Clinton intends to “abolish” the Second Amendment, presumably by appointing liberal justices to the Supreme Court. But Trump punctuated that line with an aside, suggesting that Second Amendment supporters might be in a position to stop her even if she’s elected.

The Trump campaign rejected the notion that Trump was inciting violence against Clinton or anyone else with his aside at the Wilmington rally. Instead, the campaign said the Manhattan billionaire was simply appealing to the collective political muscle Second Amendment supporters possess.

Clinton did not take any questions after her event in Miami on Tuesday, but reached for comment, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook condemned the comments. "This is simple—what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," he said in a statement.

Following Trump's remark, the main super PAC supporting her, Priorities USA Action, immediately circulated the clip with the subject line, "Donald Trump Just Suggested That Someone Shoot Hillary Clinton."

Congressional Democrats piled on. Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Trump "makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl."

Rep. Eric Swallwell, a California Democrat, called on Twitter for the Secret Service to investigate. “Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word. @SecretService must investigate #TrumpThreat,” he wrote.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, launched a series of tweets criticizing the comments: "Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis," he wrote. "This isn't play. Unstable people with powerful guns and an unhinged hatred for Hillary are listening to you, @realDonaldTrump."

A column in Esquire takes a look at the larger issue of FTF is wrong with the Republican Party that no one has the spine to do an intervention and strip Trump of the GOP presidential nomination.  Here are column excerpts:

OK, is hinting that maybe your political opponent should get shot The Line?

If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.

Is that The Line?  You know, The Line, the one that He, Trump has to cross before the entire Republican Party, not to mention a good portion of the human race, finds him too revolting for their delicate stomachs? What say you, Paul Ryan? Is that the line? John McCain? Mitch McConnell? All you clowns in the tricorns and the Watering The Tree Of Liberty tank tops? What say you all? Do you stand by this?

How about the elite political press? Is this enough to push you over the line to admitting every day in your coverage that this is not a normal election because the Republican Party has nominated a public sociopath for President of the United States?

What he said on Tuesday is something Donald Trump does every day of his life, on purpose, as a matter of policy and a perfect expression of everything he stands for. It seems one could stoop even lower than Nixon to be president. 

If that isn't The Line, then what in the hell is The Line? Actually doing it?

Why the GOP Can't Run from Giuliani's Hateful Rhetoric

While Rudy Giuliani has belatedly back peddled on his statements that Barack Obama doesn't "love America" and wasn't raised to love this country, the foaming at the mouth across the Republican Party base and among a number of the Party's worse demagogues continues undiminished.  Why?  In my view, because of the rampant racism that is now a prerequisite to being a Republican in far too many circles within the GOP.  This element of the GOP simply has never gotten over having a man who is half black in the White House.  Obama's mere presence reminds these people that their days of unrestricted white privilege are waning and that - horror of horrors - American is moving towards a minority majority population.  A post at The Bilerico Project looks at the unrelenting hate that motivates the GOP base.  Here are highlights:

Republicans can't run from Rudy Giuliani's hateful rhetoric about President Obama's patriotism, because their base won't let them. This is who they are.

Last week, former New York mayor and failed GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ruined a quiet dinner where anti-tax Republicans were vetting Wisconsin governor and possible presidential candidate Scott Walker -- by becoming the latest Republican to question President Obama's patriotism.

Giuliani doubled down in an interview with the New York Post.  "Logically, think about his background," Giuliani said. "The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old," he added in reference to President Obama's childhood years living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather. On Sean Hannity's show, Giuliani invoked 9/11 to reinforce his claim about the president's patriotism.

Meanwhile, conservatives jumped on the Giuliani bandwagon.

• Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) said Americans should "thank" Giuliani for taking the debate "back to national security."
• Rep. Peter King (R-New York) said Giuliani "should not apologize" for his comments because President Obama doesn't have the right "fervor" to fight terrorism.
• Fox News' Katie Pavlich echoed Giuliani, saying the president has a "blame America first" approach.
• After initially punting on the president's patriotism, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker attacked the president's faith instead, telling a Washington Post reporter that he "doesn't know" if the president is a Christian or not.
• RedState.org founder Erick Erickson echoed Walker, tweeting that the president is not a Christian "in any meaningful way."

Then an interesting thing happened: they tried to take it all back.

It's become the usual conservative response when those who lived through the consequences of America failing to live up to its stated ideals dare speak their truth. First our love of country is questioned. Then we're told how to love their America, on their terms.

President Obama has expressed his love for America countless times, but conservatives don't believe he loves it the right way. To them, America is like a fragile narcissist who must be loved unquestioningly and uncritically. As Matt Taibbi noted, it's an ironically Soviet style of patriotism, especially for people fond of calling the president a "communist."

Republicans can't run from Giuliani's hateful rhetoric -- it's who they are. They're tailoring their rhetoric for a shrinking white conservative base that's wrestling with economic anxiety caused by right-wing policies and the cultural anxiety facing an America where white is no longer the norm.

The strategy has worked too well for Republicans, and it's now required to win credibility with right-wing conservatives. It also repulses an American majority that looks less and less like the GOP base.

The audience for right-wing xenophobia and jingoism is only going to get smaller. The Republicans' problem is that they don't appear to have anything else.

 

Hate and fear - and of course greed - are the main motivations for the policies of today's GOP.

Who Really Loves America?

With Teabagistan erupting in outrage over the "snub" of America Sniper at last night's Academy Awards - my personal view is, thank God the revisionist history/war porn won no major awards - and Rudy Giuliani attacking Barack Obama's loyalty to America in a sad effort to remain in the political spotlight, it is a good time to ask what it means to "love America."   For the "love it or leave it crowd," it means to blindly cheerleader for whatever America does no matter how wrong and heinous and to cling to the myth of "American exceptionalism" no matter what facts might suggest a conclusion to the contrary.  To me, loving America means first and foremost being honest about America's strengths and its failings.  A column in the New York Times looks at this latter type of analysis which is increasingly an unknown concept to those in the GOP base.  Here are excerpts:

We have arrived at the point where the utter tedium and desperation of personal attacks against the president about his life story and his loyalty are no longer news. The histrionics have shed their ability to shock. Most right-minded Americans — ethically speaking, not ideologically speaking — have moved on.  But occasionally the insults prove to be accidentally instructive.

Take for instance what Rudy Giuliani (“America’s mayor”) said about the president last week at a dinner for Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin (a contender for America’s president). At the dinner — attended, according to Politico, by “about 60 right-leaning business executives and conservative media types” — Giuliani said, “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.”  He continued, “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.” . . . and questioning the president’s faith in American exceptionalism.

As the Pew Research Center pointed out in July, “the view that the U.S. is exceptional — standing above all other countries in the world — has declined 10 points since 2011.” At that time last year, 58 percent of Americans believed America is “one of the greatest countries in the world, along with others,” while only 28 percent believed America “stands above all other countries in the world.”

And what does it mean to love the country? We’re not talking about touristic love of the place — not the mountains and the valleys, the cities and the suburbs, the mighty rivers and the shores that kiss the oceans — but a love of the idea of America.

In a way, this is an ideological battle. Conservatism is rooted in preservation; progressivism advances alteration.

Our allegiance needn’t — mustn’t — be blind to be true. We must acknowledge our warts if we are to proclaim our beauty. Our aggrandizement must be grounded. We must be willing to laud America where it has soared and rebuke it where it has faltered.  America is a great country in many ways. But it is far from perfect.

Seeking to preserve and enshrine one vision of this country from one period of its past robs it of what makes it magical: its infinite possibility for adjustment.

There is room for betterment. America is not static. America is striving.  And sometimes, America requires critique. Jingoism is an avoidance of realism.

You can simultaneously love and be disappointed in the object of your love, wanting it to be better than it is. In fact, that is a measure of love. Honest critique is a pillar of patriotism.  As James Baldwin put it, “I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

Of course, if you want a good take down of Giuliani, here are some highlights from a New York Post op-ed:

Rudy may have forgotten the half-dozen deferments he won ducking the Vietnam War, even getting the federal judge he was clerking for to write a letter creating a special exemption for him. And remember Bernie Kerik? He's the Giulaini police commissioner, business partner and sidekick whose nomination as homeland security secretary narrowly preceded indictments. He then did his national service in prison.

Giuliani went so far as to rebuke the President for not being "brought up the way you were and the way I was brought up through love of this country," a bow no doubt to the parenting prowess of Harold Giuliani, who did time in Sing Sing for holding up a Harlem milkman and was the bat-wielding enforcer for the loan-sharking operation run out of a Brooklyn bar owned by Rudy's uncle.

Harold, whose robbery conviction was in the name of an alias, made sure the draft board knew he was a felon. On the other hand, Obama's grandfather and uncle served. His uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, which apparently affected him so deeply he stayed in the family attic for six months when he returned home.

 There's more, but you get the drift.

Giuliani Billed Obscure City Agencies for Trips to Visit Mistress

While I will concede that Giuliani did much to clean up New York as mayor - I remember the bums and homeless flocking around St. Patrick's Cathedral and the Hemsley Palace during the final Dinkins years during the holidays - I do not quite feel that he is trust worthy. We do not need another self-envisioned "cowboy" like the Chimperator as president. It will be interesting to see what comes of these revelations. Visits to one's mistress while still married ought to get some of the Christianists in a dither. here are highlights from Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7073.html):

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records. The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board. When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller. But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.

Nathan would go on to become Giuliani’s third wife, but his second marriage was officially intact until the spring of 2000, and City Hall officials at the time responded to questions about his absences by saying he was spending time with his son and playing golf. Eight of those trips, however, were not noted on Giuliani's official schedule, which is now available in the city's municipal archive and contains many details of Giuliani's official and unofficial life.

The New York Post reported the following year that Giuliani "had long weekend visits with gal pal Judi Nathan at her Southampton, L.I., condo last summer, according to neighbors who said the mayor did little to conceal their relationship.” The neighbors called their relationship and their time in Nathan's two-bedroom condo overlooking Noyack Bay "an open secret.”

9/11 Firefighters and Family Members Plot Anti-Giuliani Ad Campaign

I will concede that I do not trust Rudy Giuliani and with former in-laws in New York City - some of whom lived near the WTC site and were exposed to the pollutants in the air - I am glad that someone is challenging Giuliani's sanitized version of events. His disgusting pandering to the Christianist far right is also a huge concern, as is his effort to out cowboy the Chimperator in bellicose foreign policy comments. Here are some highlights form an ABC News story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3881195&page=1):

A group of 9/11 firefighters and victims' family members with eyes on derailing Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is close to a decision on forming an entity that would run issue ads in key early nominating states. "TV made him a hero, and we'll use TV to take him down," New York Fire Chief Jim Riches told ABC News.

This Monday, the firefighters and family members are holding a meeting at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire hoping to spread the word about what they say is Giuliani's "egregious" use of 9/11 for political gain. The group also is considering additional trips to early presidential primary states Iowa, Florida and South Carolina. Riches, who lost his firefighter son Jimmy in the World Trade Center's north tower, said, "We don't want him running on 9/11 or the bodies of all these dead people or my dead son saying that he did a great job that day."

He and other members of the anti-Giuliani group claim 9/11 first responders were given bad radios and that that prevented them from hearing evacuation orders when the World Trade Center buildings were about to collapse. They also contend Giuliani rushed cleanup work and misled people about air quality at Ground Zero, where recovery workers, including Riches, say they contracted illnesses.

I also remember how my former father-in-law, a former top member of the FDNY Division of Safety, NEVER liked the World Trade Center and felt it's construction, fire suppression system, etc., was not what it should have been. He always contrasted the WTC with the Empire State Building which he thought was a wonderful structure, even though considerably older. For example, he would never go to Windows on the World at the top of the complex because of his issues with the WTC.

The Perils of Pat Robertson's Endorsement

With Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, I truly hope some in the media will put Giuliani on the spot concerning Robertson's many hate-filled and utterly whacked out positions. People for the American Way has put together a great summary of what exactly Robertson brings with his endorsement baggage wise (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/11/the_perils_of_w.html?tr=y&auid=3166292). I recommend this page to you and hope it is enlightening and useful. Here are a few of Robertson's documented positions (the man is truly insane):

Abortion - 700 Club, 10-18-89 “First of all, the Supreme Court ruled that unborn babies weren’t human beings under the Constitution, and therefore we started an orgy of slaughter of our young...At that point we have said, our judges are waffling on life, our politicians refuse to act, and our people want to destroy unborn human life. And so God says, `Alright, if you continue the slaughter of the innocent, I’m going to begin to slaughter you.’”

Affirmative Action - 700 Club, 6-14-95 “There are groups in our society who are extremely able. The Chinese, for example, Asian-Americans, they’re extremely able and they always score high and are disproportionately represented in the high levels. Same thing generally with the Jewish people. They are very high achievers. They don’t like quotas because it will discriminate against them. If you say, `Well, you can only have five Chinese and two Jews, and so forth, and you’ve got to have fifteen Hispanics, etcetera.’ then all of sudden those people are denied their opportunities. And they are very intelligent and very vocal in society, and this is one of the reasons you’re seeing these decisions, I think. It’s unfair to these achieving groups, if you will, to deny them opportunities merely because they are of the wrong ethnic group. They consider it un-American.”

AIDS - 700 Club, 2-26-92 “It’s time...to treat this like any other disease and use all the public health standards including isolating the people who have it and knowing who they are and taking precautions about it.”

War on Christians - 700 Club, 9-18-97 “In America, if somebody’s a woman, a female -- protected. If somebody’s Hispanic -- protected. If somebody’s an Asian -- protected. If somebody’s an African American -- protected. If somebody’s Native American -- protected. If somebody’s disabled -- they’re protected. If somebody’s a homosexual -- protected. If somebody’s a Christian -- anathema. I mean no protection whatsoever to this group in America or anyplace else. And the politically correct philosophy being taught in our school does not encompass the rights of Christians.”

Homosexuality - 700 Club, 5-6-82 “You know, one of the great misnomers in our society is the term `gay.’ That somebody who is involved in something that is leading to suicide, where the V.D. rate is 11 times that of others, which are almost driven and ashamed and fearful and confused and psychotic and all the others that we read about plaguing this part of our society. The term gay is the most serious misuse of the English language. They’re not gay, they’re very, very depressed and miserable.” 700 Club, 1-21-93 “When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together.”

Other Religious Beliefs - 700 Club, 9-11-89 “Hinduism and many of the occult activities that come out of the Orient are inspired by demons and demon worship...There’s this concept that all religions are the same and all are good. That is not true. The worship of the Devil is not good.” 700 Club, 1-7-91 “[W]hat is Hinduism but Devil worship, ultimately?” 700 Club, 1-14-91 “You say, ‘You’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing.’ Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the anti-Christ. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don’t have to be nice to them.”

Teaching Evolution - 700 Club, 11-10-05 “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Women - Fundraising Letter, 1992 “The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani for president

The local Virginian Pilot is reporting (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=136463&ran=28558&tref=po) that Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for President. This is a noticeable break with James "Daddy" Dobson who has heretofore said "No Way, No How" to Giuliani It will be interesting to see if Dobson shifts his support to Giuliani since in my view, Dobson is more concerned with power and influence than any real Christian message (particularly since Dobson puts out so many flat out lies on many topics, ex-gay programs included). Here are story highlights:

Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson endorsed Republican Rudy Giuliani for president Wednesday, citing the ex-New York City mayor’s leadership during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Robertson said Giuliani was “a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans.” Conspicuously absent from Robertson’s endorsement was any acknowledgement of Giuliani’s support for abortion and gay rights, which are anathema to evangelicals’ core political agenda.

For Giuliani, who is not an evangelical, Robertson’s endorsement brings tremendous political benefits, said Larry J. Sabato, who directs the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “What this does for Giuliani is to say to evangelical Christians that he may not be perfect – but he’s acceptable. And that is very important, because Giuliani cannot win the nomination without a decent slice of evangelicals,” Sabato said.

Apart from judicial appointments, Robertson’s endorsement avoided any mention of the social issues conservative Christians call family values. Instead, Robertson said protecting America from “the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists” was the top issue facing the nation. “Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits,” he said.

The following is Andrew Sullivan's take on the endorsement with which I agree (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/robertson-and-g.html):

Since the Bush right insists that Robertson is completely irrelevant to the current GOP, I have no idea why they are fixated by his endorsement of Giuliani. For me, however, it seals the deal. Robertson blamed Americans for causing 9/11. He is a charlatan and a religious phony. He has enriched himself at the expense of millions of gullible Christians who did not understand that this man's sole principle is his own power and wealth. It doesn't surprise me that he sees eye to eye with Giuliani. They are very similar characters. But he does represent what may be becoming the consensus among Christianists: that the war on Islamic terrorism is the prime issue; and that the way to tackle it is by increasing military aggression, bombing or occupying Muslim countries, preserving Israel solely to hasten the Apocalypse, and entrenching torture as a pillar of American national security policy. The fusion of Giuliani's authoritarianism with Robertson's Christianism is indeed one future path for the GOP. It is enlightening to me to witness two very similar politicians sink their differences to forge that new, fascistic direction.

Here's one local comment on the story from a Pilot reader:

I do not know why anyone would ever want Pat Robertson's endorsement! Guiliani must not watch that show. I was baffled when I saw those two together on TV. I think Pat Robertson lost all credibility and respect a long time ago. It is painful to know that so many faithful people still look to Robertson for prayer and healing and send him money. It hurts, as a Christian. I know that the man is a meddling, gossiping fake. His faith is fake. He is full of hate and spite and deceit and greed and pride. He will smear anyone who threatens to expose his wrongdoing. Pat Robertson uses prayer and healing as a money-making tool and it makes me sick. I do not know who I will be voting for, but it will NOT be Guiliani, not now, no way.