Although it might be better described as ‘Government Produced Propoganda’.

The story is that in the wee hours of January 21, 2017 the White House, after viewing official National Park Service photography of Trump’s Inaguration, was dissatisfied with the disturbing lack of Trumpista bigots, misogynists, racists, Nazis, hypocritical God fearing so-called ‘Christians’, and ignorant, red-neck, gun-totin’ products of generations of incest in them.

In short the crowd was too small.

So the National Park Service was sent back to produce Photoshopped images that were a little more flattering, like airbrushing a cover shot or in this case creepy pictures from unncanny valley that look nothing at all like zombie Peter Cushing.

Now this is significant for at least a couple of reasons. First it shows that the pettiness and vanity of this Administration is boundless.

Second, this happened the night before the 2.5 Million member Women’s March on Washington though all the early indicators showed (as turned out to be the case) that it would be the largest event in D.C. since the first Inauguration of Barack Obama.

Trump inauguration crowd photos were edited after he intervened
by Jon Swaine, The Guardian
Thu 6 Sep 2018

A government photographer edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger following a personal intervention from the president, according to newly released documents.

The photographer cropped out empty space “where the crowd ended” for a new set of pictures requested by Trump on the first morning of his presidency, after he was angered by images showing his audience was smaller than Barack Obama’s in 2009.
…
The records detail a scramble within the National Park Service (NPS) on 21 January 2017 after an early-morning phone call between Trump and the acting NPS director, Michael Reynolds. They also state that Sean Spicer, then White House press secretary, called NPS officials repeatedly that day in pursuit of the more flattering photographs.

It was not clear from the records which photographs were edited and whether they were released publicly.

The newly disclosed details were not included in the inspector general’s office’s final report on its inquiry into the saga, which was published in June last year and gave a different account of the NPS photographer’s actions.

By the time Trump spoke on the telephone with Reynolds on the morning after the inauguration, then-and-now pictures of the national mall were circulating online showing that Trump’s crowd fell short of Obama’s. A reporter’s tweet containing one such pair of images was retweeted by the official NPS Twitter account.

An NPS communications official, whose name was redacted in the released files, told investigators that Reynolds called her after speaking with the president and said Trump wanted pictures from the inauguration. She said “she got the impression that President Trump wanted to see pictures that appeared to depict more spectators in the crowd”, and that the images released so far showed “a lot of empty areas”.

The communications official said she “assumed” the photographs Trump was requesting “needed to be cropped”, but that Reynolds did not ask for this specifically. She then contacted the NPS photographer who had covered the event the day before.

A second official, from the NPS public affairs department, told investigators that Spicer called her office on the morning of 21 January and asked for pictures that “accurately represented the inauguration crowd size”.

In this official’s view, Spicer’s request amounted to “a request for NPS to provide photographs in which it appeared the inauguration crowd filled the majority of the space in the photograph”. She told investigators that she, too, contacted the NPS photographer to ask for additional shots.

The NPS photographer, whose name was also redacted, told investigators he was contacted by an unidentified official who asked for “any photographs that showed the inauguration crowd sizes”. Having filed 25 photographs on inauguration day, he was asked to go back to his office and “edit a few more” for a second submission.

“He said he edited the inauguration photographs to make them look more symmetrical by cropping out the sky and cropping out the bottom where the crowd ended,” the investigators reported, adding: “He said he did so to show that there had been more of a crowd.”
…
A summary in the inspector general’s final report said the photographer told investigators “he selected a number of photos, based on his professional judgment, that concentrated on the area of the national mall where most of the crowd was standing”.

Asked to account for the discrepancy, Nancy DiPaolo, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said the cropping was not mentioned in the final report because the photographer told investigators this was his “standard artistic practice”. But investigators did not note this in the write-up of their interview.

The newly released files said Spicer was closely involved in the effort to obtain more favourable photographs. He called Reynolds immediately after the acting director spoke with Trump and then again at 3pm shortly before the new set of photographs was sent to the White House, investigators heard. Another official reported being called by Spicer.

Jenny Nicholson

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

President William McKinley shot in Buffalo, N.Y.; Funeral held for Britain’s Princess Diana; Mother Teresa mourned in India; Movie director Akira Kurosawa dies; Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame born.

If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance.

George Bernard Shaw

Continue reading

Oh Duncan, Duncan, Duncan. I bet you’ll think this song is about you.

Hunter indictment sheds light on ‘personal relationships’ for congressman
by Jeff McDonald and Morgan Cook, San Diego Union Tribune
September 4, 2018

The criminal indictment issued against Rep. Duncan Hunter and his wife, Margaret, late last month alleges years of cavalier spending — luxury resorts, fine dining, tequila shots and more — all paid for with political contributions.

The 47-page document also says the five-term Republican from Alpine had “personal relationships” with five unnamed individuals. The federal indictment offers few details about the relationships, and Hunter’s lawyer objected to the turn the investigation took.

In an August letter to the Justice Department, defense attorney Gregory Vega argued that prosecutors are pursuing criminal charges for conduct that falls into gray areas of civil election law.

“This is true even for personal indiscretions of the congressman that the prosecutors seem intent on charging,” Vega wrote. “The supposed reason given for including these details is that they reflect spending of campaign funds for extramarital infidelities and excessive drinking.”

According to Vega’s letter, prosecutors told the defense that they have pictures of indiscretions.

“While there may be evidence of infidelity, irresponsibility or alcohol dependence, once properly understood, the underlying facts do not equate to criminal activity,” Vega wrote.

The news outlet Politico reported in February that Hunter had a reputation for carousing, and that federal investigators had inquired about two women with whom Hunter allegedly had affairs.

Hunter, 41, told Politico that questions about that were “tabloid trash.” Asked if that was a denial of the affairs, Hunter replied, “No, it’s tabloid trash.”

As Vega told the Justice Department before the indictment, “These allegations are… intended to embarrass and humiliate the congressman shortly before a crucial election, and also to alienate him from his wife, the only other person under investigation and his intended co-defendant.”
…
Hunter and his wife, marking two decades of marriage this year, were indicted by a federal grand jury Aug. 21. They are charged with 60 criminal counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and filing false campaign-finance reports to cover up more than $250,000 allegedly stolen from the campaign treasury over six-plus years.

The Hunters pleaded not guilty to all charges at their U.S. District Court arraignment in San Diego late last month and were quickly released on bond.

Speaking to the media, Hunter has called his prosecution a deep state witch hunt. He has both blamed his wife for any improper spending — “she handled my finances” — and admonished reporters to “leave my wife out of it” when asked about the case.

In all, the indictment alleges some 200 incidents in which Hunter and his wife misused political donations. Many of the purchases were recorded when the family bank account had little money on deposit or were overdrawn, records show.

The re-election campaign spent more than $140,000 at bars and restaurants, often picking up the tab for friends and relatives identified in the indictment only as “individuals,” as well as three unnamed members of Congress.

Five of the unidentified people who benefited from the illegal spending — Individuals 14 through 18 — all “lived in the Washington D.C. area and had personal relationships with Duncan Hunter,” the indictment states.

In January 2010, just one year after Hunter succeeded his father (a 14-term congressman also named Duncan Hunter), the freshman representative spent $351 in campaign funds on a rental car to drive with Individual 14 from Reno to Lake Tahoe, prosecutors said.

Three days later, Hunter had his campaign pay a $1,008 tab at the Hyatt Regency Lake Tahoe Resort, Spa and Casino “for food, drinks and three nights lodging during a personal ski trip with Individual 14,” the indictment states.

On the same day, the Hunter family bank account had a negative balance and incurred six separate overdraft fees, prosecutors allege.

“On or about March 24, 2010, in Alexandria, Virginia, Duncan Hunter spent $121.34 in campaign funds at the Birchmere Music Hall for food and beer while attending a concert with Individual 14, Congressman A, and Congressman A’s date,” the indictment alleges.

Hunter’s campaign spending on behalf of Individual 14 lasted more than a year, including “driving his car on a 468-mile trip to Virginia Beach” and “a personal stay at the Liaison Capitol Hill” in the first half of 2011, the indictment claims.

The last spending alleged with Individual 14 was listed as June 2011, when prosecutors say Hunter charged $254 to his campaign for “beer, golf and clothes shopping” at the Old Hickory Golf Club.

Four more of those, I’ll skip ahead.

In addition to the five individuals in the D.C. area named as having personal relationships with Rep. Hunter, there is another — Individual 7 — identified by prosecutors as living in the San Diego area and being friends with Margaret Hunter.

“She and Margaret Hunter socialized together in the San Diego area and occasionally on family trips out of town,” the indictment says.

Prosecutors also detail an outing that included Rep. Hunter and Individual 7, without Margaret Hunter, including a night at Busboys and Poets (a restaurant, lounge, bookstore and theater).

“On or about March 23, 2016, in Washington, D.C.,” the indictment also says, “Duncan Hunter spent $865.63 in campaign funds for a room at the Liaison Capitol Hill while Individual 7 visited from San Diego.”

Throughout his political career, Hunter has presented himself to constituents as a Christian conservative and committed family man. So far, the allegations of illegal spending and other conduct antithetical to that image have not driven away voters.

A Survey USA poll released last week showed Hunter leading his opponent, Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, by 8 percentage points. While some Hunter constituents are second-guessing their support, others told The San Diego Union-Tribune they were certain to vote for him in November regardless of the criminal charges.
…
Rebecca Bartel, a professor of religious studies at San Diego State University who has been following the Hunter case, has another theory about why the scandal has yet to threaten Hunter’s re-election.

She said many white evangelical Christians are playing “the long game” and are willing to overlook personal indiscretions of elected leaders if they pass laws and appoint judges who are favorable to their core beliefs.

“It’s about putting different people on the Supreme Court,” Bartel said. “It’s about rewriting laws and recreating a kind of atmosphere where these individuals no longer feel like they are being persecuted.”

Paul Goren, who teaches political psychology and other courses at the University of Minnesota, said many voters overlook the personal behavior of elected officials because they support their positions on culture-war touchstones like abortion and same-sex marriage.

“It just blinds partisans to a lot of these indiscretions that lots of members of Congress are engaging in,” he said.

The couple is due back in court on Tuesday.

They already have your money

You’ll Only Need The Edge Of Your Seat But You’ll Have To Pay For A Whole One!

What Beard?

Two Minutes Is A Long Time

Let’s Get To The News

If you’re going to burn your shes do it privately

Why Dat?

Remember Sam Bee debuts her new studio tonight at 10:30.

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

A massacre at the Munich Olympics; President Gerald Ford escapes the first of two assassination attempts, weeks apart; Jack Kerouac’s ‘On the Road’ published; Missionary nun Mother Teresa dies.

You’re only here for a short visit. Don’t hurry, don’t worry. And be sure to smell the flowers along the way.

Walter Hagen

Continue reading

Jennifer Rubin has graduated from ‘Conservative’ to ‘Center/Right’ in her WaPo Opinion Type Rating which is a good thing I suppose though to me her position has mostly evolved from standard Republican to ‘TRUMP IS DESTROYING MY PARTY!’ to which, of course, my response is always- Good riddance to bad rubbish, the Republican Party belongs on the ash heap of History like the Federalists, the Anti-Masons, the Know Nothings, and the Whigs.

Neoliberal oligarchic hyper-capitalist regulatory merchantilism and monopoly grants have failed and all that’s left is a deluded residue of brainwashed evangelical bigots, misogynists, homophobic perverts, and racists.

Still Rubin has moments of insight and had one today about how some Left labeled policies frequently turn out to be surprisingly popular.

Support for Republicans and for Kavanaugh crumbles
By Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
September 4, 2018

The Post-ABC News poll has more dreadful results for Republicans. Democrats’ lead in the generic polling is 14 points (52 percent to 38 percent). (A new USA Today/Suffolk poll puts Democrats’ margin at 11 points.) The Republican Party as a whole gets poor marks for “being in touch with most people’s concerns” (31 percent say in touch, 63 percent say not), including 69 percent of independents. Democrats’ numbers aren’t great, but are substantially better than Republicans’ — 40 percent say in touch, 51 percent say not. As for President Trump, specifically, 63 percent say he’s out of touch. Among independents, 67 percent say he’s out of touch. Even Trump’s two groups of core voters think he’s out of touch — white non-college-educated (50/47) and rural voters (53/44). (Interestingly, 72 percent of respondents say that if Democrats win the majority, they will try to impeach Trump. Democratic lawmakers insist that they haven’t made up their minds.)

Trump and the Republicans aren’t doing a very good job scaring Americans about illegal immigration. Trump is too harsh on illegal immigrants, according to 56 percent, 11 percent say not tough enough and 31 percent about right. If Democrats are elected, a narrow plurality (47 percent) say they’ll be tough enough, while 43 percent say not tough enough.

The most consequential part of the data might be the response to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Only 38 percent think the Senate should confirm; 39 percent do not. (Among independents, 35 percent say confirm, 37 percent say don’t confirm.) Only 29 percent of women want him confirmed. College-educated whites are narrowly divided (41 percent for, 42 percent against). Regionally, Kavanaugh’s confirmation gets strong thumbs down in the Northeast (33/43 percent) and the West (33/46) — which should be of note to the GOP pro-choice senator from Maine (Susan Collins) and from Alaska (Lisa Murkowski).

No Supreme Court nominee has received such an awful response since Harriet Miers and Robert Bork, whose nominations both failed. Americans want Kavanaugh to let them know where he stands on abortion (59 percent to 31 percent). Twenty-one percent want the Supreme Court to make abortions easier to get, 45 percent want to keep the status quo, and 30 percent want to make it harder. Among independents, 49 percent want the status quo, 23 percent want it to be easier, and 25 percent say harder.

What do the rotten poll numbers for Kavanaugh mean in practice? For one thing, red-state Democrats will be less hesitant to vote against his confirmation, while possibly persuadable pro-choice senators might have second and third thoughts about confirming him — or at least slowing down the runaway train until more of his documents are released or he gives a definitive answer on abortion.

Moreover, given the public’s strong support for Kavanaugh to reveal his views on abortion, Democrats might very well want to stress that Kavanaugh’s phraseology that Roe v. Wade is “settled” law is meaningless and that since he was chosen by people who had every reason to believe he will reverse Roe, the American people should be let in on the secret as well.

Finally, Americans are becoming increasingly convinced that the Russia investigation is warranted. (The Post-ABC News poll put approval for the probe at 63 percent.) If Kavanaugh refuses to give assurances that he won’t swoop in to rescue Trump from a subpoena, an indictment or other action by the special counsel, voters might become even less favorably disposed to him. Kavanaugh would be smart to take this issue off the table entirely by promising to recuse himself from Russia probe-related matters — unless of course he was picked precisely because he’s going to give Trump every opportunity to disable the investigation and/or continue down the road of obstructing justice.

It’s Election Season for fair and would be scarier than Halloween if it happened more than every other year. Unlike some I’m still hopeful democratic change can be achieved at the Polls. Roe is 71% popular, how popular do you need to be?

It’s easy to be optomistic given the current corelation of forces and political terrain. It plays to lefist strengths though I don’t expect much policy change.

Gridlock is the best we can hope for and the least we should settle for. We will be able to oppose better. Surprised they’re not running “Culture of Corruption”, it worked for Newt. Maybe they’re saving it for ’20.

Idiots.

A blue wave or not?
By Dan Balz, Washington Post
September 3

Democrats need to pick up 23 seats to take control of the House. Given everything known at this point, the question is: Why shouldn’t they be able to do that? The Cook Political Report, for example, lists 38 Republican-held seats as toss-ups or worse, and 27 GOP seats in the “lean Republican” category, which means Republicans have the advantage but the races are competitive. The number of Democrats in toss-up or worse? Just three, with two more on the “lean Democrat” list. That imbalance speaks volumes about the climate.

The party that holds the White House almost always loses seats in midterm elections, especially during a president’s first term, and especially when a president’s approval rating is below 50 percent. Other indicators speak to the Democrats’ advantage. Through a series of special and regular elections since Trump’s victory, Democrats have shown themselves to be more energized. They have outperformed Hillary Clinton’s vote percentage in district after district.

Beyond that, there are Republican retirements. The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman counts 41 GOP-held seats with no incumbent on the ballot, including 23 because of retirements. He said it’s the highest number of Republican open seats since at least 1930 and perhaps much longer. That’s significant because open seats are easier to flip than seats with incumbents.

But will there be a blue wave (enough to get 23 pickups), a blue tsunami (Democratic gains of well beyond 25), a blue tornado (picking off Republicans in a more haphazard and less predictable pattern), a strong tide, a riptide or just a blue surge (that would keep Democrats short of their goal)?

Strategists differ on just how powerful and pervasive the forces are ahead of the November balloting. A few Republicans believe their party will still hold the House in January; most are far more worried. A few Democrats believe the wave will be a tsunami, pushing pickups into the range of 35 or 40 seats; others are cautiously confident. Republican pollster Ed Goeas offers a simple definition: If Democrats win the House, it was a wave; if not, it wasn’t.
…
In the Senate, it’s just the opposite. The Democrats are playing defense on Republican ground, and they face what might be the worst map in generations. GOP strategist Karl Rove took a look back and concluded that this is the worst map for any party since the country began electing senators by popular vote in 1914. Will Ritter, another GOP strategist, jokes that it’s the best map for Republicans “since they moved the Senate from Philadelphia” (which of course was before the modern Republican Party even existed).

For starters, of the 35 seats in play this year, nine are in Republican hands. The rest are held by Democrats (or, in the case of Vermont, by an independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats). Add the fact that 10 Democratic-held seats are in states Trump won in 2016, with five of those 10 in deep-red states.

The good news for Democrats is that a few of those incumbents in the purple states won by the president are considered in good shape. The bad news is that some of those in deep-red states are highly vulnerable, among them North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, Indiana’s Joe Donnelly and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. Democrats feel a bit better about West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III and even better about Montana’s Jon Tester, but Trump won Manchin’s state by 42 points and Tester’s by 20 points. Add to the list of worries for Democrats the state of Florida, where Sen. Bill Nelson faces a serious challenge from Gov. Rick Scott (R), who can spend his own fortune in one of the costliest states in the country.

So what’s the path for Democrats? The first step is to protect all or virtually all those vulnerable incumbents. Bruce Mehlman, who worked in the George W. Bush White House, suggests that’s not out of the question. He did a study looking at 333 Senate races in 10 midterm elections dating to 1978. He concluded that what matters most “is not being from the party that holds the White House, regardless of a state’s partisan lean.”

If Democrats manage to protect their incumbents, they have to win only two more seats. Prospects are considered best — but not certain — in Nevada and Arizona, followed by Tennessee. A long shot is Texas, where Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke has captured the imaginations of Democrats as no other candidate this year. He is giving Republican Sen. Ted Cruz a strong challenge but is still the underdog.

Republicans are confident that they will still hold the Senate in January. “There isn’t a plausible path,” one strategist said. “Every night I dream of trading maps with my Senate colleagues,” said another Republican who is focused more on House races. Dick Wadhams, a Colorado-based GOP strategist, believes his party will emerge with more Senate seats than it has today. In that case, he said, the blue wave “will be tinted with purple haze.”
…
The gubernatorial races are the opposite of the Senate races. Of the 36 contests this fall, 26 are in states controlled by Republicans, nine by Democrats and one by an independent. More than a dozen races have no incumbent, thanks largely to term limits. Democrats hold 16 governorships today and will gain ground. The question is how much?

Though they will get less attention than they deserve, the gubernatorial races will have an impact on politics at the state and federal levels lasting well into the next decade. That’s because, after the 2020 Census, governors who are elected in November will play a key role in the next round of redistricting (at least in the states where legislatures and governors still control the process).

Republican gubernatorial and state legislative victories in 2010 gave the party power over redistricting, which in turn produced congressional maps that have given the GOP an added advantage in maintaining its House majority. For that reason alone, the stakes are sizable.

Beyond that, gubernatorial races are important for shaping the 2020 presidential campaign. For a political party, having the governorship doesn’t guarantee that its presidential nominee will win that state, but it’s a boost nonetheless. Having the governorship is critical to building infrastructure in political parties, and Democrats have been weakened dramatically by their lack of power in many states.

Strategists are looking specifically at Ohio and Florida, where there are toss-up governors’ races in open-seat contests in states that have often been the biggest presidential battlegrounds in recent years. Other battleground states with competitive gubernatorial races include Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Nevada.
…
Finally, as several strategists noted, a Democratic victory in 2018 would mark the fifth election in the past six — the others being 2008, 2010, 2014 and 2016 — that can be defined as change elections. If that’s the case, it will be another reminder of the power of change and the degree to which voters remain unhappy with the state of politics.

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

This Day in History

Crisis unfolds in Little Rock, Ark. over racial integration in schools; Ford rolls out its ill-fated Edsel; Attorney William Kunstler dies; Mark Spitz sets Olympic gold record; Singer Beyonce born.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

Khalil Gibran

Continue reading