Grabbing That Low-Hanging Fruit

"Senator Sessions," Cory Booker of New Jersey intoned yesterday, "has not demonstrated a commitment to a central requirement of the job – to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all."

It is probably unfair to slam Senator Booker as hypocritical, as some conservatives have, for his criticism because he honored Senator Sessions at the Capitol Visitor Center in 2016 when they both recognized marchers who successfully pressed for what eventually became the Voting Rights Act of 1965. "I am humbled," Booker said at the time, "to be able to participate here in paying tribute to some of the extraordinary Americans whose footsteps paved the way for me and my generation. I feel blessed and honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions in being the Senate sponsors of this important award."





Honoring their colleagues is what Senators do. There is a political upside and no downside.

It also may even be unfair (barely) to draw parallels between the Cory Booker who on that day declared himself "humbled," as well as "blessed and honored" to the Booker who testified yesterday against the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General.   He proclaimed it "a blessing and honor" to have participated in the earlier event with Sessions and maintained "in the choice between standing with Senate norms or standing up for what my conscience tells me is best for our country, I will always choose conscience and country."

The United States Senate is a small, exclusive club whose members frequently testify to the importance of their conscience and love of country, as well as having been blessed by you-know-who.

More substantively, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committe, Booker argued that Sessions'

record indicates that we cannot count on him to support state and national efforts toward bringing justice to a justice system that people on both sides of the aisle readily admit is biased against the poor, drug addicted, mentally ill, and people of color.

His record indicates that at a time when even the FBI director is speaking out about implicit racial bias in policing and the need to address it; at a time when the last two Attorneys General have taken steps to fix our broken criminal justice system; and at a time when the Justice Department he would lead has uncovered systemic abuses in police departments all over the United States including Ferguson, including Newark; Senator Sessions would not continue to lead urgently needed change.





The criticism is valid, as has been almost all of the criticism of the nomination of the Alabama Senator. However, it was celebrated as precedent because it was the first time a sitting United States Senator testified against the appointment of a sitting United States Senator for a cabinet position. And it was nothing more.

Of the three most pressing issues facing the judiciary (campaign finance reform being the third), Booker gave glancing reference to one when he stated "He will be expected to defend voting rights, but his record indicates that he won’t."

While stoutly defending gay rights, the New Jerseyan completely ignored another right, which is threatened by.... let's have the American Civil Liberties Union, as it appears on its website, explain:

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:


Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;                  
Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;

Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.


While circumstances differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.


There is some, limite, risk in pointing to "uncovered systemic abuses in police department" and none asserting the need to protect "the equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans."

But woe be to the man or woman who vigorously denies there is a constitutional, let alone ethical, right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief.  HB 2 in North Carolina has been dubbed by opponents as "the bathroom bill" because it disadvantages gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals by requiring them in government buildings to use only bathrooms corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate.

HB2 and similar bills which advocates refer to as "religious freedom" initiatives protect discrimination also on the basis of color, gender, national origin, ethnicity, or religious belief.  There are people- most prominently the incoming Vice President of the United States- who have tried, and will continue to try, to memorialize discrimination on the basis of the euphemistically-termed "faith."
Bob Jones University "had justified its ban" on interracial dating which lasted half a century "by saying that God created people differently for a reason." The college dropped its prohibition only after its tax exemption was withdrawn by the Internal Revenue Service- whose commissioner is appointed, with consent of the Senate, by the President of the United States.

Prohibition of interracial dating won't come into vogue.  However, Donald Trump has interviewed possible nominees for the US Supreme Court from a list given him by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. With the possibility that he or President Pence might nominate as many as four Justices, the GOP effort to codify discrimination on the basis of religion or "faith" presents a real and serious threat to freedom of religion and to the United States of Constitution.

Senator Booker chose to downplay the critical issue of voting rights and ignore that of the wall of separation between church and state. The failure lays bare his testimony as sound and fury, signifiying nothing of substance.








Share |

All Aboard To Moscow

We may no know for awhile whether the latest speculation about Donald Trump's connection to the Kremlin is valid.   Similarly, we presently cannot be certain whether Hillary Clinton will be able to claim the distinction of being the first U.S.A. candidate ever to lose a presidential election to a foreign agent.

But we do know two things: Trump likes Putin and the Russian government is very, very fond of the President-elect. Politico had reported

The state duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, erupted in applause Wednesday as Republican Donald Trump was declared the winner of the U.S. election.

“Hillary Clinton has admitted defeat in the U.S. presidential election, and a second ago Trump began his speech as president-elect of the United States of America, and I congratulate you all,” said Vyacheslav Nikonov, a state duma member, as the house applauded.

Trump returns the adulation.  We know not only from his kind words for strongman Vladimir Putin.  Nor can we be absolutely certain (nearly, not absolutely) that Kellyanne Conway doesn't speak only for herself when she professes to be unconcerned that the President-elect isn't displeased that Russia tried to upend the presidential election.

The real tip-off comes from radio host Sean Hannity.  Immediately after Mitt Romney conceded the presidential election in 2008, the GOP turned its attention to consideration of how to appeal to hispanics, whose votes played a major role in the Party's failure at the polls.   In his own election post-mortem- both a portent of the GOP "autopsy" and a reflection of its mood at the moment- Hannity stated

.... it’s gotta be resolved. The majority of people here—if some people have criminal records you can send’ em home—but if people are here, law-abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here... first secure the border, pathway to citizenship.

Time went on, the GOP started to move back to its anti-immigration/illegal immigration stance, Donald Trump rose up, and Hannity consequently reversed his support for comprehensive immigration reform.

On Sunday, however, Hannity made known his views, which are those of his Party, currently headed by Donald Trump.  He responded to the satirical tweet "YES! All Americans must join together to MAKE RUSSIA GREAT AGAIN. Teamwork!! #MRGA" with his own "Amen!!"

Once a twit noted he had not "read carefully," Hannity deleted his tweet in favor of  "Guilty. And you are 100% correct. My mistake and I erased it and humbly apologize."

The original tweet came from a "Donnie L'il Hands" and put "make Russia great again" in all caps, Yet, Hannity claims his agreement with the message was a "mistake."

His original tweet was a "mistake"- because his hand was caught in the cookie jar, and he made Trump's preferences clear. Once a fierce critic, during the campaign he became a born-again defender of Julian Assange as the latter leaked emails in his (successful) effort to elect Trump. Now Hannity, once a Repeal and Replace Obamacare Yesterday advocate, tweets 'I happen to agree with President-Elect Trump, they should be repealing Obamacare piece by piece as they find replacement."

But he needn't have used nearly all of his 140-word allotment. He could have begun and ended it with "I happen to agree with President-Elect Trump." He's going to do what he believes he must as a loyal Republican. He will follow Dear Leader wherever he goes. And whatever the veracity of the most current intelligence revealed, Dear Leader's loyalties clearly lie somewhere east of Poland..

Share |

Partisan Politics, Indeed

There she goes again. Interviewed Friday by Chris Cuomo, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway argued

Hey, Chris. We had a president in the United States in October who cold have, when Mr. Clapper said what he said, pushed back harder but did not because what was he doing? He and Hillary Clinton were out there with their teams absolutely believeing he was going to be the President so let's not... so they politicized it because they didn't understand in America what was going to happen in the election.

She certainly stays on message. On Monday, USA Today reported

"I predict that President Trump will want to make sure that our actions are proportionate to what occurred, based on what we know," she told Capital Download. She said the steps Obama took, including ejecting 35 alleged Russian spies, were harsher than those he ordered after reported hacking by China and North Korea and suggested the reason for the difference was political.

Conway ridiculed a proposal by House and Senate Democrats on Monday to establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the allegations against Russia. U.S. intelligence agencies last week reported that Moscow, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, then leaked them in an effort to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and elect Trump. Trump has supported investigations by the House and Senate.

"It's curious and a little bit humorous that Democrats would talk about anything bipartisan ... given how they have vowed to obstruct everything we do," she said, saying there already was "a great deal of information out there" about the hacking. "I do find it to be very ironic that the uptick and the hue-and-cry of 'investigation' and 'information' has occurred after the election results are in. ...

"The fact is, the Democrats became super-duper interested in this entire issue after the election did not go the way they, quote, wanted and the way they expected."

There was no "hue and cry" precisely because of partisan politics- played by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Three Washington Post reporters learned that by mid-September, White House officials had decided to blame the Russians publicly for hacking computer servers.  However

they worried that doing so unilaterally and without bipartisan congressional backing just weeks before the election would make Obama vulnerable to charges that he was using intelligence for political purposes.

Instead, officials devised a plan to seek bipartisan support from top lawmakers and set up a secret meeting with the Gang of 12 — a group that includes House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of both chambers’ committees on intelligence and homeland security.

Obama dispatched Monaco, FBI Director James B. Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to make the pitch for a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against Russian interference in the election, according to a senior administration official.

Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions.

Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals.

And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.”

The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously. Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.

Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

Democratic officials were "super-duper interested in this issue"- but were effectively blocked by Republican McConnell, who determined partisan politics were more important than national security. Other Republicans focused on policy because they believed an announcement "would rattle public confidence and play into Moscow's hands."  President Obama was ready to act, but those tough guy Republicans got cold feet and decided to appease Moscow.

Continuing (at approximately 7:45), Conway remarked

In the last couple of days of Obama's eight years in office, President Obama's eight years of his presidency, all of a sudden he's going to be tough on Russia. Seriously? I can't even say it without laughing.... It doesn't make it OK that we've been so weak on Russia for eight years.

Seriously, Kellyanne?  President Obama wanted to take action- but was stymied by congressional Republicans scared of Russia and by McConnell, who would attack any statement or action taken by Obama as an effort to boost Democratic electoral fortunes.

Democrats should heed the record and notice they will be attacked by the GOP for any action they take or fail to take. The election is over, they will say, get over it, and did we mention the election is over?   They will realize, too, that Kellyanne Conway will say whatever Donald Trump wants her to say, whatever the facts or her personal beliefs.

She may not know of the President's meeting with congressional leaders in October. Surely, however, she knew months ago about an e-mail/Russia nexus, when in July a candidate urged "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you'll probably be rewarded mightily by our press."









Share |

Streep Is Not A Creep

Meghan McCain has famously tweeted "This Meryl Streep speech is why Trump won. And if people in Hollywood don't start recognizing why and how- you will help him get re-elected."

McCain doesn't indicate how a speech made on January 6, 2017 elected someone on November 9, 2016. but never mind. She explains little, perhaps because she would seem to be the hypocrite she apparently believes Hollywood stars are. However, we don't know, because McCain did not mention why she believes Streep's speech will be so helpful to Trump politically.

It may have been wise to avoid facts, to which conservatives are often allergic, or the Arizona senator's daughter may realize that an individual living in a figurative glass house shouldn't throw stones.

Responding to McCain's tweet in a (mostly) righteous rant of his own, Charles Clymer says he "grew up in white poverty in central Texas" with a father "who is a lifelong car mechanic," a "mother (who has worked minimum wage jobs all her life," and a stepfather who "was junior enlisted in the Army." He warns "these folks- my people- don't need your condescending conservative asses speaking for our 'values.'"

Clymer slams McCain for pretending to care about the working class while she is "a privileged white daughter of a U.S. senator who used her dady's connections to get this far ahead."  Evidently, McCain did not graduate from Podunk High School in Flyover Country, Kansas or Working Class U. in Oklahoma, Alabama, or Idaho. Wikipedia helpfully informs us she "attended Phoenix Country Day School and Xavier College Preparatory, an all-girl Catholic high school. She attended Columbia University, where she earned her bachelor's degree in art history."

That doesn't preclude Ms. McCain from speaking on behalf of the average Joe and Jane (or if younger, Joshua and Jessica).  However, it doesn't give her the street credibility that she understands Meryl Streep lacks- but in fact never claimed.

McCain may have been motivated by outrage that political commentary would be offered by an elite actress or because she now has obtained a fine gig at Fox News.  She may be unnacustomed to the humility demonstrated when Street approvingly recalled "Tommie Lee Jones said to me 'isn't it such a privilege, Meryl, to be an actor?'" Streep didn't claim it to be an "honor" nor pretend to be "humbled," instead recognizing it as a privilege.

Or there may be something more serious, more disturbing, more dangerous involved. Before endorsing the Committee to Protect Journalists, Streep explained "we need the principled press- to hold power to account, to call them on the carpet, be outraged."  There is probably nothing Donald Trump, nor his supporters, hate and fear more than a free press. For one night at least, an actress reminded us of the danger ahead, and if it happens to be an extremely privileged, wealthy celebrity, someone had to do it.












Share |

Leading The Charge

"Grow up Donald, grow up, time to be an adult, you're president. You gotta do something, show us what you have," Vice-President Joe Biden advised the President-elect last week. Biden added that once Trump becomes President in a few weeks, "it's going to be much clearer what he's for and against and what we're for and against."

It's time for Donald Trump to grow up whilewe are getting a better idea what his appointee as Presidential Counselor, Kellyanne Conway, is for and against.

We got an inkling last week when Chris Cuomo of CNN's "New Day" interrogated Conway about Trump's refusal to acknowledge the singular effort of the Russian government to influence the presidential election. Cuomo, probably aware that our intelligence services found that Moscow preferred Trump to Clinton and most likely tried also to swing congressional elections, narrowed the questioning to the effort to undermine the legitimacy of the USA's presidential election process.

Conway refused to acknowledge even this and noted "I see you're very passionate about this." Cuomo replied "Russia trying to hack during our election being ignored by the President-elect? That's troubling." In a "what the hell?" moment, Conway responded "no, it's not."

Being a darling of the media, Conway faced no blowback after conceding that she was fine with Russian meddling in American elections.

She faced only a little criticism when on November 13 she argued "It's time really for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to say to these protesters, 'This man is our president."  That was three days after the President's cordial meeting with the President-elect and four days after Mrs. Clinton had stated "We owe him (Trump) an open mind and the chance to lead," which was fairly impressive for a rival whom Trump had declared if he were President would have "Bureau of Prisons" in her mailing address.

So Conway has been encouraged to remain propagandist-in-chief for the incoming president. In that role, she appeared Monday morning on "Fox and Friends" to condemn the President-elect's critics after Meryl Streep criticized Trump at the Golden Globes awards for kicking Trump's ass- uh, er, slamming him for mocking a disabled reporter during the campaign.  Politico reports

Conway accused Streep of “inciting people's worst instincts” with her Sunday night speech. That time would have been put to better use, Trump’s incoming counselor said, by searching for common ground with the incoming administration, something Conway suggested the president-elect “has actually done from moment one.”








If Trump has tried to find "common ground," it would be news to Martha Raddatz, Arnold Schwarzenegger- and the Democratic National Committee, which the President-elect has blamed for the hacking he won't actually acknowledge Moscow participated in (neat trick, that).

Inciting "worse instincts?" As Trump's co-campaign manager during the campaign, that is something Conway is thoroughly acquainted with- and now invested in.   Everyone is entitled to his/her favorite Trump effort at encouraging violence.  One of the most threatening, however, came at an August rally in North Carolina in which the Republican candidate (falsely) declared

Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish – the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, (there’s) nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you, that will be a horrible day.

Blessed with an IQ exceeding 50, Conway no doubt realized telling a bunch of Second Amendment activists that a President Clinton would try to abolish the Second Amendment and "maybe there is" something they can do about it is an incitement to violence.  She probably even knows how that ranks with criticizing an individual for mocking a disabled man.

It's impossible to determine whether most of the incoming Administration wants to undermine the free press and suppress dissent.  But the objective of Donald Trump is clear, as it is to his Propagandist-in-Chief, General Kellyanne Conway.






Share |

The Strategy Of 'No'

Donald Trump, Michael Grunwald observes, is "the ultimate anti-Obama." Barack Obama is a man of little drama, not given to rhetorical excess or rarely taking offense at personal slights, and whose mood swings range from A to B. Trump, though, has been "a vessel for anger—at Obama, at the multiracial and multicultural Obama coalition, and at the Republican insiders who failed to stop Obama."

Barack Obama was fortunate in 2008 to face a challenger who would not be that "vessel of anger." In early October of 2008, a supporter at a McCain rally haltingly stated "I can't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's not,he's not uh- he's an Arab. He's not-"  The Arizona senator then took the microphone from her and stated "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man (and) citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not" an Arab.

Amid acclaim from some Democrats, some Republicans, and across the mainstream media, we did not fully appreciate at the time how tactically counter-productive (albeit honorable) was the candidate's refusal to reinforce the skepticism about Obama's background.

A similar error occurred in the campaign's messaging. After McCain had become the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, he launched his first general election ad, entitled "The American President."







Alec MacGillis at the time raised the concerns of many critics when he asked whether McCain was "seeking to raise doubts about Sen. Barack Obama, a potential opponent who has an exotic African name, spent much of his youth living in a Muslim country and attended a church run by a pastor known for his occasional anti-American rhetoric?" Quaintly, he suggested such "subtle contrasts may be a part of the McCain arsenal."

A couple of months later, McCain had dropped the ad, selected as his running mate a secessionist sympathizer from outside the continental United States, framed his ticket as "mavericks" (running against the first black major party presidential nominee) and consequently got smothered in November.

And eight years later, we would have a presidential candidate from the same party who had no patience with subtleties, and for whom there never has been a "maybe."  Mexicans are rapists, Muslims are to be banned from the USA, women to be openly denigrated for their looks, journalists to be sued and bankrupted, blacks to be treated as possessions, foreign dictators are praised, and prisoners of war not considered heroes because they were "captured."

The last pertained to the infamous remark Donald Trump made about John McCain, for which the candidate was given a free pass by Republican voters, in part because it was made about John McCain, who chose not to be a fellow traveler in bigotry, and lost partly as a result.  From that point forward, the GOP chose a policy of obstruction, voting unanimously against the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act but, as Michael Grunwald explains, "in lockstep against previously uncontroversial Obama priorities, like extended unemployment benefits, expanded infrastructure spending and small-business tax cuts." Grunwald writes

“A lot of us woke up every morning thinking about how to kick Obama, who could say the harshest thing about Obama on the air,” says longtime Republican lobbyist and operative Ed Rogers, who wrote in House Speaker Paul Ryan on his ballot for president. “We ended up where any hint of nuance or maturity just proved you were incapable of being the bull in the china shop that our voters wanted.”

While employing a "strategy of kicking the hell out of Obama all the time, treating him to not just as a president from the opposing party but an extreme threat to the American way of life," the GOP won back the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

Then they won back the White House with what seemed the most unlikely of candidate although, Grunwald argues

President-elect Trump is in many ways the logical result of their Obama-fighting, norm-violating, non-governing strategy. After eight years of defining itself as the anti-Obama party, eight years of anti-Obama messaging and organizing, it makes sense that the GOP will be led by the ultimate anti-Obama. 

As will the country. John McCain played ball with President Obama, as did House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a manner, and they both ended up as losers. Then Donald Trump came along, promised Americans they would "get tired of winning," promised to throw his general election opponent in jail, and got elected. There is a lesson in that for Democrats, one they are unlikely to heed.







Share |

Russia? Not Important To This Crowd

At first glance, there are few similarities between the grumpy, gloomy, unabashedly dishonest Donald Trump and the slick and smiling, devious and calculating Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway. First glances, however, can be misleading.

Once the intelligence community laid bare to President Obama, President-elect Trump, and the American people its conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed a campaign to disrupt the American elections, defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Mr. Trump, the latter released a statement which included

While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines. There were attempts to hack the Republican National Committee, but the RNC had strong hacking defenses and the hackers were unsuccessful.

There is nothing wrong with that statement, other than: the issue at hand had nothing to do with "China, other countries, outside groups and people;" it is unclear whether attempts to hack RNC servers were unsuccessful; the impact on the outcome of the election is uncertain..

Otherwise, Trump's remarks were dead-on.

The thrust of Grump's comments was intended to distract and divert.   CNN "New Day" co-host Chris Cuomo recognized this- and that the tactic was nearly identical to that of Friday guest Kellyanne Conway.   In his roughly 17-minute interview, Cuomo tried repeatedly to induce Conway to admit that Russia was behind the hacking of e-mails prior to the election. Particularly telling- and characteristic- was this exchange, which began at approximately 6:40 of the video below:

Cuomo: Has he ever accepted that Russia was behind the hacks? You're ducking the obvious. And I don't know why.

Conway: I'm not ducking the obvious.  Hey, Chris- by the way, I 'm not ducking the obvious; not my style.  It's not my style. Here's the deal. The President-elect and all of us who work for him, and the Vice President-elect, I assure you- are against any foreign interference in the United States of America- including cyber-security,which obviously has not been a big priority for the last eight years; maybe that will change.... You want us to commit to a proposition because somehow to make everybody feel better about that. Complete the sentence because-

Cuomo: That Russia was behind the hack. You didn't even say the word 'Russia' in the last minute and a half. You said we're against any foreign opposition (sic) but you didn't say Russia. You talk about the DNC; you don't talk about Russia. Why?

Mrs. Conway stated "Let's talk about Russia," whereupon she resumed to an earlier topic, President Obama's alleged inaction toward Russia the past eight years. 

The slickster doesn't care for Hillary Clinton. She has sheer contempt for the President- but that's not why she goes back to condemning him.  She's following the Trump playbook. Or possibly Trump is following her playbook; it may not matter anymore.    Neither of them will say "Russia hacked..."

They will instead claim that China, other countries, other actors, or even that famous 400-pound guy sitting on his bed may be the villains.  It's a statement that will not be rebutted because a) doing so would only divert attention from the issue, Russian interference in the election; b) it's a very complicated topic which would only confuse viewers, listeners, or readers; and c) no one wants to defend China or a 400- pound man.

"(We're) against any foreign interference" is low-hanging fruit in a manner similar to being forced to issue an apology and saying "I apologize if anything I said might have offended someone."

It's also a classic, and relatively effective, way of avoiding the major issue. There may, however, be an additional reason the Trumpists have no interest in decrying interference from Moscow, one even more disturbing than any so far suggested. At one point, the patronizing Kellyanne Conway told the CNN host (at 3:53)  "I see you're very passionate about this."   Cuomo replied "Russia trying to hack during our election being ignored by the President-elect? That's troubling." To which Conway responded "no, it's not."











Share |