monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

This morning, Politico published a story with a provocative headline: “Poll: Majority of voters back Trump travel ban.”

“A clear majority of voters supports President Donald Trump’s travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll,” the piece begins.

The story was quickly embraced by White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

.@MorningConsult Poll: Majority of voters back Trump travel ban
Via @politico

There is only one problem with this story: it isn’t true.

Politico did not even ask a polling question ab0ut the latest version of Trump’s travel ban, which is expressed in a March 7 executive order. Rather, the poll asked about “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominately Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country.” These guidelines are not Trump’s policy, but a requirement imposed through a per curium order of the Supreme Court.

Quote:

We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion.

Trump opposes allowing visa applicant from these countries to enter the United States if they “prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country.” Trump’s order dictates “that the entry into the United States of nationals of those six countries be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of this order, subject to the limitations, waivers, and exceptions set forth in sections 3 and 12 of this order.” There are exceptions for dual nationals or people who already have valid visas — but there is no exception for family members. The Trump administration is actively fighting this requirement.

In sum, Politico substituted a policy that Trump opposes, called it “Trump’s travel ban” and is using it to claim that “Trump’s travel ban has majority support.”

The Politico article acknowledges that “The POLITICO/Morning Consult question doesn’t mention Trump, nor does it refer to the president’s executive orders on immigration.”

Polling of Trump’s actual travel ban has consistently shown that a majority of Americans oppose it. This includes polls from CBS (51% oppose), CNN (53% oppose), Quinnipiac (55% oppose), Pew (59% oppose).

On the eve of his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump held a press conference in Poland and declared that “nobody really knows” who meddled in the 2016 election.

Trump’s assessment breaks sharply from the U.S. intelligence community, which has pinned the blame squarely on Russia.

Trump was asked: “Will you once and for all, yes or no, say that Russia
definitive interfered with the 2016 election.”

He refused to do so, saying that “it could have been other people in other countries.”

Strangely, as Trump cast doubt on whether Russia was involved, he also sharply criticized Obama for not taking action against Russia during the campaign.

Trump said that Obama refused to act because he thought Hillary Clinton would win — an implicit acknowledgement not only that Russia intervened but that Russia’s purpose was to help him win the election.

If it was truly unclear who was responsible, Obama’s alleged hesitancy to act would have been appropriate.

“He was told in early August by presumably the CIA that Russia was trying to get involved or meddling pretty strongly with the election,” Trump said of Obama. “He did nothing about it. The reason is he thought Hillary was going to win and if he thought I was going to win he would have done plenty about it.”

Trump dismissed the assessment from the U.S. intelligence community, saying he had done “heavy research” and found it was only the opinion of only “three or four” agencies. Those agencies were the FBI, CIA, and the NSA, along with the Director of National Intelligence. No intelligence agencies disagreed with the assessment — some simply weren’t involved.

James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8 about the findings of the intelligence community:

The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies. They were given complete, unfettered mutual access to all sensitive raw intelligence data, and importantly, complete independence to reach their findings. They found that the Russian government pursued a multifaceted influence campaign in the run-up to the election, including aggressive use of cyber capabilities.

Former FBI Director James Comey was definitive in his June 8 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee:

Quote:

BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?

COMEY: None.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.

Former CIA Director John Brennan had a similar assessment on May 23 before the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Quote:

I think they’re all chronicled in the unclassified intelligence community assessment, in terms of — it’s very clear that the GRU was responsible for hacking into the — the networks of the DNC, DCCC, and were responsible, through a cutout, releasing it through places like Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and — and others.

Notably, intelligence officials in Trump’s own administration share this assessment, including Mike Rogers, Trump’s NSA Director; Dan Coats, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence; and Mike Pompeo, Trump’s CIA Director.

Trump then turned his attention to the media, saying “many of your compatriots had to change their reporting and apologize and they had to correct” their reporting on Russian interference. (Trump is referring to this technical correction by the AP, regarding how many agencies were actively involved in the intelligence assessment, which doesn’t actually speak to the issue of Russian involvement.)

Trump then used that as a jumping off point for casting more doubt on Russian interference. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure,” Trump said.

Polish officials then cut off NBC Reporter Hallie Jackson’s microphone before she could ask a follow up question.

Trump’s response — while internally incoherent — will likely please Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has denied involvement in election-related hacking.

Trump is not expected to raise the issue in his first meeting with Putin as president, scheduled for Friday.

Federal ethics chief who clashed with Trump to step down

The director of the independent Office of Government Ethics, who has been the federal government’s most persistent critic of the Trump administration’s approach to ethics, announced Thursday that he is resigning nearly six months before his term is scheduled to end.

Walter M. Shaub Jr. repeatedly challenged the Trump administration, publicly urging President Trump to fully divest from his business empire and chastising a senior Trump adviser for violating ethics rules. His outspokenness drew the ire of administration officials and earned him near-cult status among Trump’s opponents. Fans started a Facebook page in his honor, and his name has occasionally appeared on posters at anti-Trump protests.

Shaub made no reference to those clashes in a resignation letter he submitted Thursday indicating he will step down July 19. Instead, he praised the work of federal ethics officials, pointedly noting their commitment to “protecting the principle that public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.”

In an interview, Shaub said he was not leaving under pressure, adding that no one in the White House or the administration pushed him to leave. But the ethics chief said he felt that he had reached the limit of what he could achieve in this administration, within the current ethics framework.

“It’s clear that there isn’t more I could accomplish,” he said.

Shaub is set to take a new job as senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy group founded by Trevor Potter, who served as a Republican appointee to the Federal Election Commission. Shaub said he hopes to find bipartisan solutions to strengthening government ethics programs at the federal and state levels.

“In working with the current administration, it has become clear that we need to strengthen the ethics program,” he said.

Created in 1978, the ethics office is designed to promote and protect laws intended to prevent conflicts of interest by government officials. The office offers ethics guidance and training for government officials and oversees employees’ annual disclosure of personal finances, but it has limited enforcement authority.

Woman, 25, convicted for making up fake rape claims against 15 innocent men

A British woman who repeatedly claimed of being sexually assaulted and raped by 15 different men – leading one to be wrongly imprisoned – is now facing jail time of her own after she was convicted Thursday of lying about her claims.

From 2010 to 2013, Beale claimed that she was sexually assaulted by six men and raped by nine -- all of them strangers – in four different encounters, prosecutors said.

"Jemma Beale was a determined liar who repeatedly went to great lengths to fabricate evidence in an attempt to see innocent men convicted, including telling deliberate lies under oath,” London Crown Prosecution Service Lawyer Samuel Mainsaid. Beale was convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice.

In one false claim from 2012, Beale said she was attacked by four men in an alley with a piece of barb wire. But jurors were shown footage of her walking home alone and were told by prosecutors that the injuries were self-inflicted.

You know you can't deny these things, glitterbag, they are all right there in the US public record, yet you all operate in a bubble, where you outright deny reality.

Police arrest man for allegedly threatening Sen. Flake's staff

According to an aide to Flake, Prichard told a staffer:

"You know how liberals are going to solve the Republican problem? ... They are going to get better aim. That last guy tried, but he needed better aim. We will get better aim."

The statement was an apparent reference to the June 14 shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., where Scalise, R-La., and four others were shot by gunman James T. Hodgkinson, who was fatally shot by Capitol Police.

Flake, R-Ariz., was on the baseball field that day.

Pima County authorities also arrested 70-year-old protester Patrick Diehl for criminal trespass in the 3rd degree after he allegedly attempted to force his way into Flake’s office.

For Finn: See that last sentence? That's what I been trying to tell ya. A politician's private office is not "public property" where anyone can go, without need for permission, anytime they feel like it. The fact that he is considered a "public figure" does not change that in the least.

Police arrest man for allegedly threatening Sen. Flake's staff

It makes me wonder if senator Flake might be a true snow flake.

"THAT REPUBLICAN IS A GOD-DAMNED LIAR AND I KNOW IT!!"

Calling his values and deeply-held convictions "understandings"