Did Jared Kushner Throw Trump Jr. Under the Bus?

Human nature - especially when immoral and unethical individuals are involved - is such that when the issue comes down to saving one's own ass versus throwing under the bus, many will opt to save themselves and allow purported friends and even family members to go down in flames.  In his prepared statement and testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jared Kushner seemed to perhaps signaled that if it came down to him or Donald Trump, Jr., and perhaps even Der Trumpenführer himself, Kushner would look out for himself first and foremost.  Of course, given Kushner's past lies and convenient memory losses, all of Kushner's song and dance may yet to prove to be false and could backfire and lead to criminal prosecution - something he seemingly is trying desperately to avoid.   A column in the Washington Post looks at Kushner's apparent willingness to throw  Donald Trump, Jr., under the bus.  Here are excerpts:  

Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner is set to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee this morning, and what is striking about his extensive opening statement is the degree to which it seeks to insulate Kushner himself from any culpability or responsibility for the problematic known facts about the Russia affair — particularly the known facts that concern Donald Trump Jr.

Kushner’s statement takes exceptional care to separate him, with scalpel-like precision, from the now-notorious meeting that Trump Jr. arranged with a Russian lawyer — a meeting that Trump Jr. had been informed would furnish the Trump campaign with information about Hillary Clinton supplied by the Russian government. Here is what Kushner’s statement says about the meeting (emphasis added):
 In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr. asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3:00 p.m. . . . . He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. . . . . I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting.
 [I]n looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote “Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.” . . . . No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted. 
 It’s not entirely clear that the “long back and forth” that Kushner claims he “did not read at the time” is the email chain that Trump Jr. released, under duress, which demonstrated that the meeting was taken with the express purpose of getting information advertised as coming from the Russian government. But it seems clear that this is what he is referring to. Note that Kushner does not say one way or the other whether he had been sent this email chain before. What we do know, however, is that Kushner says he never read it. And if Kushner is to be believed, he agreed to, and showed up at, this meeting without having any idea why it was being held. This, even though Trump Jr. was quite excited about what this meeting might yield (“I love it,” Trump Jr. exulted in the email chain), and even though Trump’s then-campaign chair Paul Manafort was also present. Also note the exceptional care that went into Kushner’s characterization of the meeting. He claims he arrived just late enough to miss the incriminating part of the meeting. Trump Jr. admitted in his second statement that the Russian lawyer brought up the campaign. . . .
 Kushner’s statement does not deny outright either that the meeting did address the campaign or that any documents had been offered to the Trump camp, which the email chainappears to confirm. All it does is insulate Kushner from those facts. [W]hatever the truth turns out to be on those fronts, what Kushner’s statement does not do is contest any of the known facts about that meeting — known facts that are deeply problematic for Trump Jr. and even for Trump himself. The meeting, at a minimum, shows that Trump Jr. was eager to collude with the Russian government, which, he had been told, was trying to get his father elected president.  Kushner’s statement denies any collusion on his own part, and claims no awareness of any other collusion . . . .
 President Trump himself reportedly signed off on that initial false statement, which means the president actively participated in an effort to mislead the country about his own campaign’s eagerness to collude with Russia to help him win. Kushner’s statement offers nothing to challenge these underlying facts. It just separates him from them.

Bob and Maureen McDonnell - A Case Study of Virginia GOP "Family Values"

While thousands were at Norfolk's Town Point Park supporting marriage equality in Virginia, the federal criminal trial of former GOP governor Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen continues to provide a case study in the type of marriages the Virginia GOP and the hate merchants at The Family Foundation want to protect.  Candidly, there seems to be little "sanctity of marriage" in the McDonnell's marriage and all too many of the marriages I witnessed during the "straight" phase of my life in a outwardly perfect high end neighborhood in Virginia Beach.  A column in the Richmond Times Dispatch looks at the ongoing spectacle of  back stabbing and throwing one's spouse under the bus that is one of the main theme of the McDonnell trial.  Here are excerpts:

Former aides Mary-Shea Sutherland, Sarah Scarbrough and Phil Cox and sister-in-law Mo Carney McDonnell chucked Maureen McDonnell under the bus. Then, husband Bob backed over her — gently.

The thread running through the testimony of prosecution and defense witnesses is that Maureen is volatile and insecure, if not unstable.

Depending on who’s asking the questions or who’s answering them, she embodies the rage of Lady Macbeth, the emotional frailty of Blanche DuBois, the blonde ambition of Eva Peron and the subtly of Snooki.

For 20 days, Maureen has quietly endured a carefully scripted trashing. Her freedom could depend on it.

Her husband of 38 years, the man with whom she held hands in public as a wife, first lady and co-defendant, now barely speaks to her. As the former governor squirmed past Maureen in Judge James Spencer’s courtroom Friday, they repelled each other — much as magnets do when their like poles are placed together.

Bob knows he’s in serious trouble; that getting out of it is serious business. He’s been in tight spots before — but politically. Each time, he successfully extracted himself on the strength of his on-cue earnestness, his talent for parsing words, and his deeply held belief that if he says something often enough, people will actually believe him.

There was Bob’s artful use in 2003 of a phrase heard often during his three days of testimony this past week on damning details of his backroom dealings with the protected-from-prosecution Jonnie Williams Sr.: “Not that I can recall.”

Eleven years ago, when Bob was chairman of the House courts committee, that was his response when asked whether he — as a married man with five children — had violated a since-scrapped prohibition on sodomy that was a factor in the doomed reappointment of a female judge accused by another woman of sexual harassment.

Possibly facing decades in prison and millions of dollars in fines, Bob — in his latest and riskiest charm offensive — is relying on these time-proven skills. But he is throwing in — or is that throwing out? — Maureen for good measure.

Bob lives for another day, but chivalry is dead.

This requires piling on Maureen — and requires that she take it. A reminder of that will be how closely, if at all, her lawyers question Bob. They’ll have a shot at him starting Monday, followed by prosecutors. And the feds are certain to have a slew of questions.

Further, Maureen’s continuing silence is interpreted as consent to the defense’s argument that she and Bob, their marriage having collapsed, were utterly incapable of communication.

Ergo, they couldn’t possibly conspire to trade on Virginia’s governorship for at least $177,000 in gifts, trips, cash and loans from Williams. A rich man, he was angling for state support of a supposed, tobacco-derived cure-all that, he hoped, would make him even richer.

McDonnell driving Jonnie Williams' Ferrari

Obama Will Not Sign Employment Non-Discrimination Executive Order

Demonstrating yet again that he's only too happy to throw LGBT Americans under the bus when he deems it politically expedient, Barack Obama has made it clear based on reports following a meeting at the White House that he will not sign an ENDA like executive order that would have barred anti-LGBT employment discrimination by federal contractors. True, such an executive order would have left millions of LGBT Americans living in anti-gay, hell hole states like Virginia unprotected, but it would have been a start. Apparently, Obama again is displaying his attitude that LGBT voters will support him no matter what simply because the alternative is far worse. It's a case of cynical politics at its worse. Here are highlights from MetroWeekly on this issue:

At 3 p.m. today [yesterday], LGBT advocates went to the White House to attend a meeting being led by White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett to discuss advocates and the administration's work addressing anti-LGBT workplace discrimination, according to two sources familiar with but not attending the meeting.

The LGBT organization advocates attending the meeting and others have been pushing President Obama to issue an executive order banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors.

Although the White House has endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the House Republican leadership opposes the bill and the Senate did not move the bill in the 111th Congress, when it had more Democrats in the chamber.

The government also has another route -- the executive order path -- in the case of a not insignificant number of employers. Because 22 percent of the jobs in this country are with employers who contract with the federal government, according to Freedom to Work's Almeida, the Department of Labor has some authority to redress discrimination by federal contractors.

In an updated story, MetroWeekly confirms that no such executive order is in the offing:

President Obama does not plan to sign an executive order at this time banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, according to a statement from Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. A senior administration official confirmed the news to Metro Weekly.

"Earlier today, we were told that the Administration is not ready to move forward with a federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order at this time," Solmonese said of the meeting first reported by Metro Weekly. "We are extremely disappointed with this decision and will continue to advocate for an executive order from the president. The unfortunate truth is that hard-working Americans can be fired simply for being gay or transgender. Given the number of employees that would be covered by this executive order, it represents a critical step forward."

The move is a blow to advocates, many of whom had been pushing for action over the past several months. Tico Almeida, the founder of Freedom to Work, had told Metro Weekly repeatedly that he was confident the president would sign such an order -- by this June at the latest.

The Task Force's Carey, however, countered: "LGBT people and their families should not continue to be forced to live in fear of losing their livelihoods, their homes, their ability to provide for their families because an employer discriminates. And employers who do discriminate certainly should not be rewarded with taxpayer-funded government contracts."

Presidential Candidates on LGBT Issues

NOTE: Click on the image to enlarge.

For some time I've felt that Barack Obama is more than willing to throw LGBT Americans under the bus whenever he deems it convenient. Yet he remains confident that most of us in the LGBT community will vote for his re-election simply because the other options are all far worse. It's a case of picking a mild poison versus something that might be fatal. The chart above prepared by MarriageEquality.org demonstrates why Obama can hold such a mindset and continue to treat LGBT Americans as less than full citizens. It's a sad statement on the political landscape in the USA.

Obama Ignores Same-Sex Bi-National Couples in Immigration Speech

Driving home earlier this week I received a call from Obama's Organizing for America. Not surprisingly, the caller was looking for money and supposedly volunteers. She made one mistake: she asked what I thought of the Obama administration and the question allowed me to voice my utter frustration with Obama's lack of leadership 90% or more of the time and his bi-polar approach to LGBT issues. Obama did it again in terms of ostensibly throwing LGBT Americans under the bus in terms of comprehensive immigration reform. During his speech today, there wasn't a peep about the plight of bi-national same sex couples legally married in one of the U.S. jurisdictions affording marriage rights to all. Even as some media outlets have been reporting how Obama is looking to LGBT money for his re-election campaign. Yes, I am fully aware that Obama has obstacles with the GOP controlled House, etc., but is it too much to ask for some consistency? And by consistency, I'm not talking about asking for LGBT money. I swear I feel like I have whiplash from Obama's back and forth support for LGBT Americans. It would be nice to be able to vote for a candidate because you believed in him/her as opposed to viewing them as the lesser of two evils. The Washington Blade has coverage on Obama's latest slight to the LGBT community. Here are some highlights:
*
President Obama’s speech on Tuesday calling for a bipartisan approach to immigration reform lacked explicit mention of the plight of bi-national gay couples, but LGBT rights supporters are hoping his inclusion of family unification was a hint of his support.
*
In his address at the Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas, Obama emphasized passage of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress would have benefits for both the economic prosperity and border security of the country while making no explicit mention of the plight that many gay families face under current immigration laws.
*
But never during the speech did Obama directly address how under current immigration law gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Foreign nationals in same-sex relationships with Americans could be subject to deportation and separation from their loved ones upon expiration of their temporary visas that allow them to remain in the country.
*
Even U.S. citizens in legally recognized same-sex marriages with foreign nationals cannot obtain marriage-based I-130 green cards for their spouses because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of the unions.
*
At one point in his address, Obama said immigration law should “respect families following the rules — reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart.” The remark seemed directed toward immigrants who are permanent residents in the United States seeking to have their loved ones join them, and not aimed at problems faced by gay Americans and their foreign partners.
*
“While applicants wait for approval, for example, they’re often forbidden from visiting the United States,” Obama said. “Even husbands and wives may have to spend years apart. Parents can’t see their children. I don’t believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That’s not right. That’s not who we are.”

*

Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations, also said he applauds the commitment to reform that President Obama expressed during his speech and for emphasizing that family unification is the bedrock of immigration law. However, Soloway said Obama needs to take administrative action by exercising his prosecutorial authority to ensure that foreign nationals in legally recognized same-sex marriages with U.S. citizens can stay in the country without fear of deportation.

*

“To keep our country safe, we must focus our law enforcement resources on deporting those who have committed crimes and endanger our security,” Soloway said. . . . . “This administration can act now to ensure that no LGBT families are torn apart by instituting a moratorium on deportations of all spouses of lesbian and gay Americans until all married couples are treated equally under our immigration laws,” Soloway said.

Mid-Term Election Saw Disproportionate Drop in Gay Support of Democrats

While the Log Cabin Republicans are trying to fan what I see as a myth - i.e., that more gays voted for Republicans than ever before on Tuesday - one thing does seem to be certain: LGBT voters did NOT support Democrats ate the rate they have done so in prior elections, including the last midterm election. As for the claimed increase in gays voting for the GOP, I suspect the percentage looked higher simply because fewer gays in total voted. If nothing else, the GOP does know who to turn out the Kool-Aid drinkers (or in this case the self-hating kapos) at election time. While I applaud what the Log Cabin Republicans have accomplished to date in court on DADT, I still see being a rabid Republican and being gay as mutually exclusive unless one has a death wish or enjoys being denigrated. America Blog Gay reported this data:
*
2006 US House exit poll:
3% of voters were gay
75% voted Democratic
24% voted Republican
*
2008 US House exit poll:
3% of voters were gay
80% voted Democratic
19% voted Republican

2008 Obama vs McCain exit poll:
4% of voters were gay
70% voted Obama
27% voted McCain
*
2010 US House exit poll data:
3% of voters were gay
68% voted Democratic
31% voted Republican
*
Unfortunately, the exit polling doesn't indicate the relative aggregate number of gay voters in each election year. With more and more people coming out and being willing to identify as gay, without total numbers, it is hard to confirm what was going on for certain. One thing is clear, however: the message to Democrats is that if you don't deliver on promises, the LGBT vote cannot be taken for granted. Ditto for Hispanics, labor, blacks, etc. America Blog Gay also noted as follows:
*
After reviewing the full data, Sherrill [the researcher] says there was a disproportionate drop in Democratic support among LGBT voters compared to Hispanic, black, and young voters. Though the sample size is still very small and thus there's a large margin of error, Sherrill now says the drop may be attributed to "dissatisfaction with the pace of change on LGB rights over the past two years."

BREAKING UPDATE: Obama Administration Deals "Devastating Blow" against DADT Repeal Advocates

I received this "on the record" release from SLDN less than 30 minutes ago. I urge readers to read it and to contact the White House and their members of Congress. Each and every one of us needs to make it clear: either support us NOW or expect no support and no money from the LGBT community in November. With friends like Obama, who needs an enemy. All we receive is talk, appointments of gays and lesbians to bureaucratic positions and no legislation that would protect those of us in fly over states from arbitrary firing and discharge from the military (even as convicted felons and gang members are accepted into the ranks). Here is the message (more information is on the SLDN website):

*
This on-the-record email is for media and others monitoring the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT):
*
**Aubrey Sarvis – Army veteran and executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network -- a group fighting to repeal DADT and representing active and former service members -- will join repeal activists at the White House protest TOMORROW at noon** (Excerpts from Sarvis’ prepared remarks follow below)
*
WHAT HAPPENED? Late Friday evening, the Obama Administration shot a simultaneous salvo – from the Pentagon and the White House -- at advocates fighting for repeal this year, appearing to reverse on the president’s commitment in his State of The Union Address to the American people: “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.”
*
EXCERPTS FROM AUBREY SARVIS’ SUNDAY REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY:
*
“Harry Truman led; Barack Obama defers, kicking repeal down the road -- again.
*
“In his State of the Union message President Obama said repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was the right thing to do. But Friday evening President Obama did the wrong thing, and in doing so he and Secretary Gates delivered a devastating blow to getting repeal done this year. Their joint political decision showed a lack of respect for our LGBT service members who are on the frontlines every day risking their lives for our safety.
*
“As a result of the Commander in Chief's decision to defer to Secretary Gates' wishes and timeline, gay service members will continue to be treated as second class citizens, and any sense of fairness may well have been delayed for yet another year, perhaps for another decade.
*
“The President did not sound like a fierce repeal advocate. He sounded like someone who wants to have it both ways. And that is not leadership. That is politics as usual.”

Yet Another Sell Out on Don't Ask, Don'T Tell

As Chris Johnson at DC Agenda is reporting, disturbing noises are coming out of Congress suggesting that even if President Obama includes a repeal of DADT in the defense budget request, the repeal may nonetheless be killed in Congress (the question is, will it be with or without Obama's acquiescence). I for one am sick to death of the constant betrayal of LGBT citizens by our alleged friends in Congress. Even though polls show that a significant majority of Americans - excluding the wingnut crowd, of course - support the repeal of DADT, Congressional Democrats lack the will and/or courage to deliver on this very clear campaign promise. It makes me furious and is why I continue to tell Congressional Democrat fundraising callers that neither the boyfriend or I are giving them a dime. I strongly support the Don't Ask, Don't Give campaign for which I have a link on the right side of this blog. Here are some highlight's from Chris' story:

*
Even if President Obama includes a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal as part of his upcoming defense budget request, the language could be yanked by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
*
President Obama is being pressured to include a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of his upcoming defense budget request to Congress, but the response from two key Democrats to such a proposal could hinder any change in the law.
*
Two lawmakers with considerable sway over defense matters — and whether a repeal will initially be part of the fiscal year 2011 defense budget — are House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
*
Some advocates, including Belkin [Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center], are questioning whether Levin and Skelton would retain Obama’s request to lift the ban on open service in the U.S. armed forces as part of their chairman’s marks for the defense budget. Belkin was particularly skeptical about Levin’s willingness to let repeal go forward because of the senator’s history on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
*
“Levin has been a huge problem on this issue,” Belkin said. “Who the hell knows where Levin is personally, but I would say that very few people in the United States have done more to obstruct the service of openly gay troops than Carl Levin.” Belkin took issue with Levin’s abandoned plan to hold hearings last year on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Those hearings never took place.
*
C. Dixon Osburn, former head of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Levin has gone on record several times as noting that he supports repeal of the ban, but acknowledged Levin is “somebody who’s very much a consensus builder within the Senate Armed Services Committee.” “So if it’s not percolating up in the Senate Armed Services Committee, he’s going to be more reluctant even as he believes that the law should repealed, and right now you don’t have the bubbling up within the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Osburn said
*
Lara Battles, spokesperson for the House Armed Services Committee, said she couldn’t say whether Skelton would include repeal language in his chairman’s mark for the defense budget, which she said would be public in May.
*
If the House version of the bill has repeal language and the Senate version doesn’t, lawmakers would have to hash out whether repeal would be included in the final bill during conference committee — another potential point where the repeal strategy could fail.
*
Osburn said “it’s a possibility” that repeal language could survive conference, but that would depend on who congressional leaders appoint as conferees. “The effort that the LGBT community would need to push for is to ensure that the conference committee includes people who are going to be supportive of this and will leave it in,” he said.

2010 Situation Grows More Difficult for Democrats

As with the previous post about my local Congressman, Glenn Nye, the outlook for Congressional Democrats in 2010 looks increasingly challenging - and mostly because of their failure to deliver on campaign promises and constant caving in to the rump GOP faction in Congress, not to mention big health care and the drug manufacturers. The later two groups can deliver money, but they cannot turn out voters, especially if the voters feel they were sold down the river. Despite the fact that he ran an utterly abysmal campaign, I continue to credit a significant part of Creigh Deeds' loss to a feeling of malaise among the Democratic base. The deck was stacked in favor of systemic change and that opportunity has been largely squandered away absent some major change of course. Why get energized and work for the election of those who ignore you the moment they get what they want - your money and your vote and nothing more. The Washington Post looks at the Democrats' situation. Here are some highlights:

*
WASHINGTON -- An already difficult situation for Democrats in Congress is worsening as the 2010 political season opens. To minimize expected losses in next fall's election, President Barack Obama's party is testing a line of attack that resurrects George W. Bush as a boogeyman and castigates Republicans as cozy with Wall Street.
*
Four House Democrats from swing districts have recently chosen not to seek re-election, bringing to 11 the number of retirements that could leave Democratic-held seats vulnerable to Republicans. More Democratic retirements are expected.
*
In the Senate, at least four Democrats - including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and five-term Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd - are in serious trouble. The party could also lose its grip on seats Obama held in Illinois and Vice President Joe Biden long occupied in Delaware.
*
Going into 2010, Democrats held a 257-178 majority in the House and an effective 60-40 majority in the Senate, including two independents who align themselves with Democrats. But they face an incumbent-hostile electorate worried about a 10 percent unemployment rate, weary of wars and angry at politicians of all stripes. Many independents who backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have turned away. Republicans, meanwhile, are energized and united in opposing Obama's policies.
*
A top Democratic priority is minimizing losses among nearly four dozen seats the party now holds in moderate-to-conservative districts that Republican John McCain won in the 2008 presidential race. The most vulnerable in that group include Democratic Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio, Harry Teague in New Mexico, Frank Kratovil in Maryland, Tom Perriello in Virginia and Travis Childers in Mississippi. . . . The situation for Democrats in the Senate is nearly as grim as it is for them in the House.

*

Like many, I have to wonder what was the point of giving the Democrats both houses of Congress plus the White House only to see nothing basically change. And that's without even getting into the topic of LGBT rights where disappointment is all we have experienced other than the Hate Crimes Bill which while symbolic does nothing for the daily lives of most LGBT Americans.

Gates Says ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy Won’t Change Soon

In yet another move that makes me believe that LGBT Americans were cynically used by Obama during the 2008 campaign Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell needs to be pushed down the road and that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration. Fine and good for Gates and Obama, but not so good for LGBT citizens serving honorably in the military who have to continue to worry about being caught up in witch hunts triggered by anonymous accusers. Obama has shown great skill and implementing nice window dressing - e.g., changing the White House website to include alleged LGBT goals or signing on to the non-binding U.N. resolution decriminalizing homosexuality - but when it comes to substance, Obama is missing in action. Here are highlights from the New York Times on this latest proof that gays have been thrown under the bus:

*

Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit." The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.

*

Gates appeared on "Fox News Sunday."