Tag Archives: Steve Benen

MSNBC: Maddow Blog | FBI’s Kash Patel faces criticisms from within the Trump administration

Posted on by
Reply

The FBI director is facing all kinds of criticisms, including some from within the bureau that Patel ostensibly leads.

Kash Patel’s difficulties at the FBI certainly didn’t start last week, but his handling of Charlie Kirk’s shooting death hasn’t exactly helped the bureau’s hapless director.

On Wednesday afternoon, for example, Patel suggested via social media that Kirk’s shooter had been captured. That wasn’t just wrong, it also had the potential to undermine the investigation: People might’ve been discouraged from calling in tips after they saw the FBI director told the public that the suspect was no longer at large.

Patel was forced to walk back his mistake soon after, but the incident quickly led to criticisms from both the left and the right. Just as notable, however, were relevant details that soon followed. NBC News reported on Friday:

FBI Director Kash Patel was dining at Rao’s in New York on Wednesday night after the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, two sources familiar with his whereabouts told NBC News. Patel had posted on X at 6:21 p.m. ET that the ‘subject’ in Kirk’s killing was ‘in custody.’ Rao’s, a well-known restaurant that is notoriously tough to get into, opens at 7 p.m. Then, at 7:59 p.m., Patel posted a follow-up post that the ‘subject in custody has been released after an interrogation by law enforcement.’

The reporting on his whereabouts certainly didn’t make Patel look any better, but the details also suggest that there were people within the FBI who were eager to alert the public to the embarrassing details of Patel’s mistake.

Around the same time, a current law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News that the “horrific event” of Kirk’s killing showcased Patel’s “public inability to meet the moment as a leader.”

Two days later, Fox News published a report with a headline that said “knives are out” for Patel — a Shakespearean metaphor suggesting that at least some of the director’s opponents are coming for him from within the FBI. The same report quoted one insider who added that the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche “have no confidence in Kash.”

That reporting has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, and the president himself continues to offer public praise for the FBI director.

Yet, as the ground beneath Patel’s feet appears less certain, former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is poised to be sworn in as the FBI’s first co-deputy director, a move that continues to be bizarre (since the FBI already has a deputy director in former podcast personality Dan Bongino) and that probably won’t help quiet the whispers about Patel’s future.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/fbis-kash-patel-faces-criticisms-trump-administration-rcna231322

Alternet: ‘Bad things will happen’: Trump ramping up threats against anyone who disagrees with him

Posted on by
Reply

When the FBI was searching the Bethesda, Maryland home of former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Friday, August 22, Michael Cohen — Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer — didn’t mince words during an appearance on MSNBC.

Bolton, Cohen argued, was being targeted for revenge by President Donald Trump and his allies. Cohen predicted that Bolton will be indicted on some type of federal charges, warning that other Trump foes will likely be facing criminal charges as well. And during a subsequent MSNBC appearance on August 24, Cohen predicted that former FBI Director James Comey will be targeted for retribution by Trump and his loyalists.

In his August 25 column, MSNBC’s Steve Benen describes a pattern of Trump overtly threatening officials who disagree with his policies.

“On Friday morning,” Benen notes, “the president specifically targeted Muriel Bowser, the Democratic mayor of the District of Columbia, for pointing to official data that conflicts with his perceptions. ‘Mayor Muriel Bowser must immediately stop giving false and highly inaccurate crime figures, or bad things will happen,’ the Republican wrote to his social media platform.”

The “Rachel Maddow Show” producer continues, “Two days later, after former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie criticized Trump during an appearance on ABC News’ ‘This Week,’ this also generated a related presidential threat. The New York Times reported: President Trump, on Sunday, (August 24), threatened to investigate former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey over a 2013 political scandal, days after the FBI raided the home and office of another former Trump official turned critic.”

The ex-Trump official Benen was referring to was obviously Bolton.

“In case that wasn’t quite enough,” Benen notes, “the president apparently also saw Maryland Gov. Wes Moore on CBS News’ ‘Face the Nation,’ leading Trump to pitch yet another threat. NBC News reported: The president, on Sunday, also threatened to pull federal funding for the replacement of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which collapsed in 2024. The federal government had previously agreed to pay for the bridge’s replacement. ‘I gave Wes Moore a lot of money to fix his demolished bridge,’ Trump wrote. ‘I will now have to rethink that decision???'”

The MSNBC columnist continues, “The published threat was accompanied by nonsensical claims about crime rates in Baltimore — a city that’s seen its murder rate drop to a 50-year low — and an attack on the Democratic governor’s military service. Moore is a decorated combat veteran who served in Afghanistan…. The common thread isn’t exactly well hidden: Bowser, Christie and Moore told the public facts that Trump didn’t want to hear, and presidential threats soon followed. Indeed, hours after targeting the former Republican governor and incumbent Democratic governor, the president, for good measure, proceeded to threaten ABC and NBC twice for airing news coverage that he disapproved of.”

‘Bad things will happen’: Trump ramping up threats against anyone who disagrees with him

https://www.alternet.org/trump-christie-benen

MSNBC: Maddow Blog | As Trump militarizes the nation’s capital, his ‘proof’ of success falls apart

Posted on by
Reply

The president claims to have evidence that his deployments in Washington, D.C., are working. A closer look suggests his proof is entirely made up.

The week after Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to the streets of Washington, D.C., and placed local police officers under federal control, the president has expressed delight over the effects of his controversial power-grab. In fact, the Republican has already convinced himself that the militarization of the nation’s capital has been a great success.

“I’ve made Washington, D.C., just an incredible place in literally four days,” he boasted during his latest Fox News appearance. The comments came the day after the president wrote on his social media platform, “People are flocking to D.C. again,” pointing to a trend he appears to have made up.

Trump has even presented proof — or at least, something he perceives as proof — of his triumph. During an Oval Office event on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Republican told reporters, “The restaurants [in D.C.] the last two days were busier than they’ve been in a long time.” A day later, he repeated the claim on Fox News.

“Did you see what’s happening with the restaurants?” he asked rhetorically. “They’re bursting.”

It’s worth emphasizing that some might see room for a debate about the tradeoffs. Perhaps, some might argue, it’s worth tolerating authoritarian tactics and the militarization of the nation’s capital if it creates conditions for a more robust local economy.

But before that debate happens, it’s important to grapple with the fact that Trump’s boast is ridiculously untrue. The Washington Post reported:

Since President Donald Trump announced his takeover of the D.C. police force last week, restaurant reservations have dropped in the city by as much as 31 percent year over year for a single day, according to restaurant booking data. Business owners are concerned that the continued surge in law enforcement could impact their revenue during a vital period of the summer.

The Post spoke to Mauricio Fraga-Rosenfeld, co-owner of El Secreto de Rosita, which is about a mile and a half north of the White House, and across the street from a police station where he said federal troops have often assembled.

“Reservations are low, low, low” compared to last year,” Fraga-Rosenfeld said, adding, “The city is dead. … People are scared.”

WUSA, the local CBS affiliate, ran a related report, noting data that showed “reservations at restaurants in the district dropped by more than 30% just two days after Trump announced he would take emergency control of police.” WTOP, a local radio station, highlighted similar statistical evidence.

So why did the president claim the opposite? It likely has something to do with the fact that he routinely struggles to the tell the difference between what’s real and what he thinks ought to be real.

But, some might say, maybe it’s all worth it if the streets of D.C. really are significantly safer. Sure, the president is engaging in authoritarian tactics, and sure, local businesses are struggling, but if crime rates have shown a sharp improvement, maybe it’s worth paying the cost?

That’s a tough argument to take seriously for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that recent crime data for D.C. found only marginal differences from before and after the federal takeover.

So let’s take stock. Despite the fact that Trump has peddled some absurd claims, we’re left with a legally dubious deployment that (a) is hurting the local community’s economy; (b) isn’t making much of a difference on crime rates; and (c) is wildly unpopular with local residents.

This isn’t a triumph; it’s the latest in a series of fiascos.

As Trump militarizes the nation’s capital, his ‘proof’ of success falls apart
The president claims to have evidence that his deployments in Washington, D.C., are working. A closer look suggests his proof is entirely made up.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-militarizes-nations-capital-proof-success-falls-apart-rcna226025

MSNBC:Maddow Blog | Why the Pentagon needed to clarify Pete Hegseth’s position on women’s voting rights

Posted on by
Reply

The good news is, the defense secretary’s spokesperson said he supports a woman’s right to vote. The bad news is they had to clarify in the first place.

Under normal circumstances, no one would think to ask the Pentagon whether the current secretary of defense supports women’s voting rights, but there’s little about our current political landscape that’s “normal.” Hence, The Hill reported:

The Trump administration on Thursday sought to clarify Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s support for women’s voting rights following controversy spurred by his repost of a video tied to a pastor who said the opposite. ‘Of course, the secretary thinks that women should have the right to vote. That’s a stupid question,’ Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told reporters during Thursday’s briefing.

I can appreciate why the DOD’s right-wing spokesperson — someone who, as Politico reported earlier this year, “has touted antisemitic views, white supremacist conspiracy theories and Kremlin-like statements on social media” — would be eager to dismiss the line of inquiry. But it really wasn’t that stupid a question.

In fact, it was just two weeks ago when Hegseth used his social media account to amplify a video about a Christian nationalist church that included various pastors saying women should no longer be allowed to vote. The Associated Press reported:

In the post, Hegseth commented on an almost seven-minute-long report by CNN examining Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or CREC. The report featured a pastor from Wilson’s church advocating the repeal of women’s right to vote from the Constitution, and another pastor saying that in his ideal world, people would vote as households. It also featured a female congregant saying that she submits to her husband.

Hegseth didn’t explicitly endorse the idea of repealing voting rights for American women, but he also didn’t make any effort to distance himself from the rhetoric used in the video he shared with his online followers. On the contrary, he promoted the video, alongside his own written message that read, “All of Christ for All of Life.”

When this sparked a controversy, the former Fox News host could’ve made it clear that he disagreed with the comments, or that he supports leaving the 19th Amendment intact. Instead, Hegseth said nothing.

What’s more, the secretary’s office didn’t make much of an effort, either. When asked about the video he promoted, a Pentagon spokesperson told the AP that Hegseth is “a proud member of a church” that is affiliated with CREC and he “very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.”

All of this, of course, came on the heels of Hegseth’s efforts to purge several women from leadership posts within the U.S. armed forces.

Hopefully, what the Pentagon spokesperson said was accurate, and the secretary doesn’t actually support rolling back women’s voting rights, despite the content of the video he amplified online. But to see this question as somehow out of bounds given the broader context is difficult to take seriously.

Why the Pentagon needed to clarify Pete Hegseth’s position on women’s voting rights
The good news is, the defense secretary’s spokesperson said he supports a woman’s right to vote. The bad news is they had to clarify in the first place.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pentagon-needed-clarify-pete-hegseths-position-womens-voting-rights-rcna225686

MSNBC: Maddow Blog | Trump prefers to play make-believe amid discouraging news on inflation

Posted on by
Reply

As inflation inches higher and consumer prices climb, the president is resorting to a familiar tactic: He’s making stuff up.

For Americans concerned about inflation and consumer costs, recent developments have been discouraging. Two weeks ago, for example, the public learned that the Consumer Price Index climbed unexpectedly in June, amid signs that Donald Trump’s trade tariffs were pushing prices higher.

This week, the disappointing news continued as the Commerce Department reported the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index — a metric that’s closely watched by the Federal Reserve for evidence of inflation — is also climbing, and as The New York Times reported, the data represented “the latest sign that President Trump’s tariffs are starting to bleed through into consumer prices.”

Then Trump sat down with New York Post columnist Miranda Devine and made a rather specific claim, not only about the key economic issue, but about his perceived successes.

“You know, if you think, inflation, I’ve already taken care of,” the president claimed. “Prices are way down for everything — groceries, everything.”

Certainly this is the official White House line, with a variety of administration officials pushing nearly identical rhetoric.

But reality won’t budge. As the Trump administration’s own data shows, grocery costs have gone up since the president returned to the Oval Office, not down.

A couple of weeks ago at a White House event for a Republican audience, Trump said Democrats “lie” when they say the prices of food and groceries have gone up, but as a CNN report noted soon after, “Nonsense. It’s correct, not a lie, to say overall prices, grocery prices and food prices in general are up during this presidency.”

This was one of the critical issues of the 2024 race, and the Republican president is clearly failing — both to deliver the results he promised and to tell the truth about reality.

Throughout last year, then-candidate Trump was repeatedly asked about his plan to lower consumer prices. Common sense suggested he would’ve prepared at least some kind of coherent answer, but that never happened. He simply said it would all work out wonderfully once he returned to power.

As prices climb, the president could acknowledge the facts and perhaps even accept some responsibility, but he prefers to play make-believe.

Trump prefers to play make-believe amid discouraging news on inflation
As inflation inches higher and consumer prices climb, the president is resorting to a familiar tactic: He’s making stuff up.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-prefers-play-make-believe-discouraging-news-inflation-rcna222243

MSNBC: Maddow Blog | New GDP data leads Trump to change his mind about blaming Biden for the economy

Posted on by
Reply

Remember when Trump said Biden should get the blame if the economy struggled in the second quarter? As luck would have it, he’s reversed course.

Last year, as Joe Biden prepared to leave his successor a great American economy, Donald Trump tried to claim credit for robust growth. To hear the Republican tell it, investors and “job creators” were so excited about the mere possibility of Trump returning to power that their gleeful anticipation sent the economy soaring.

After Trump’s second inaugural, however, the U.S. economy struggled, at which point the Republican president changed his mind: The discouraging news, he said, was Biden’s fault.

In fact, in late April, the Commerce Department released GDP data that showed the U.S. economy shrinking in the first quarter of the year (January through March). One day later, Trump not only blamed his Democratic predecessor, he said that the public should probably get ready to blame Biden for the GDP in the second quarter (April through June), too.

At the time, the incumbent president feared that the economy would continue to struggle in the spring and early summer, so he wanted to lay the groundwork early to deflect responsibility. Exactly three months later, however, the Commerce Department reported that the economy grew in the second quarter, and wouldn’t you know it, Trump decided it didn’t have anything to do with Biden after all. CNBC reported:

The U.S. economy grew at a much stronger-than-expected pace in the second quarter, powered by a turnaround in the trade balance and renewed consumer strength, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. Gross domestic product, a sum of goods and services activity across the sprawling U.S. economy, jumped 3% for the April through June period, according to figures adjusted for seasonality and inflation.

While the president was predictably eager to tout the data, the details and larger context matter. As The New York Times reported, the figures from both quarters were skewed “by big swings in trade and inventories caused by President Trump’s ever-shifting tariff policies.”

The Times added, “Taken as a whole, the data from the first six months of the year tell a more consistent story of anemic, though positive, economic growth.”

A Reuters report came to a similar conclusion, noting that the data from the second quarter masked “underlying weakness” in the domestic economy, adding that the top-line figures “grossly overstated the economy’s health as declining imports accounted for the bulk of the improvement and domestic demand rose at its slowest pace” in two-and-a-half years.

With this in mind, I expect to hear Trump trying to explain why he deserves credit for the headline on the new report showing economic growth, but Biden deserves blame for the relevant details in the same data.

New GDP data leads Trump to change his mind about blaming Biden for the economy
Remember when Trump said Biden should get the blame if the economy struggled in the second quarter? As luck would have it, he’s reversed course.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/new-gdp-data-leads-trump-change-mind-blaming-biden-economy-rcna221934

Maddow Blog | On Epstein, Senate Republican admits the party is trying to give Trump ‘cover’

Posted on by
Reply

When it comes to transparency and disclosures in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, arguably no Senate Democrat has been as aggressive as Sen. Ruben Gallego. In fact, last week, the Arizonan became the first senator to push a resolution to formally demand the release of documents from the Justice Department.

But because Gallego is in the Democratic minority, he had limited options to force a vote. He took the only credible step available to him: Last Thursday, Gallego went to the Senate floor and sought unanimous consent on his proposal. He knew, of course, that the effort would fail if only one Republican objected, and one did: Oklahoma’s Markwayne Mullin, an ardent Trump ally, balked.

Seven days later, as NBC News reported, the two faced off again:

In other words, Gallego rejected a narrow and toothless Republican alternative after Mullin rejected a more meaningful Democratic effort. (The Arizonan offered to back both resolutions, but the Oklahoman wouldn’t take the deal.)

As part of the back and forth, however, Mullin made an off-hand comment that stood out.

“I’m sure this would be handled just like any other thing [the Democrats] have tried to go after like the baseless impeachments. Or the baseless special counsels. Or the unbelievable amount of charges they tried to file against the president,” Mullin said. “I’m sure this would be handled the exact same way. What we’re simply wanting to do here is give [Trump] cover.”

For now, let’s not dwell on the fact that Trump’s impeachments weren’t “baseless.” Let’s also skip past the fact that the incumbent Republican president faced investigations from two special counsels — Robert Mueller and Jack Smith — and neither was “baseless.”

Rather, I’m interested in the GOP senator’s acknowledgement that “we” are trying to give the president “cover” in the Epstein scandal.

As The New Republic asked, “What exactly do Trump and his administration need cover for?”

For now, the party has not tried to answer the question, though Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut noted via Bluesky around the same time as the Gallego/Mullin exchange, “The number one priority of Republicans is protecting Donald Trump. It’s not protecting you. It’s protecting him.”

Three words: Midterms are coming!

And they’re going to be mayhem for Republicans.

On Epstein, Senate Republican admits the party is trying to give Trump ‘cover’
As observer asked, in reference to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, “What exactly do Trump and his administration need cover for?”

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/epstein-senate-republican-admits-party-trying-give-trump-cover-rcna221110

MSNBC: Maddow Blog | Investigators in Signal chat probe reportedly found damaging evidence on Hegseth

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been nearly three months since the Pentagon’s Office of the Inspector General started looking into the Signal chat leak scandal, specifically examining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged use of a commercially available messaging app to discuss foreign military strikes. As NBC News reported in early April, “In addition to looking at whether Hegseth complied with rules governing classified information, the inspector general will also look at whether rules about record retention were followed.”

According to new reporting from The Washington Post, the scrutiny isn’t going especially well for the beleaguered secretary.

By now, the basic elements of the “Signalgate” controversy are probably familiar: Top members of Donald Trump’s national security team participated in an unsecured group chat about sensitive operational details of a foreign military strike — and they accidentally included a journalist, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, in their online conversation.

The final paragraph of Goldberg’s piece on the fiasco read, “All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group — which, at the time, included me — ‘We are currently clean on OPSEC,’” referring to “operations security.”

In other words, the defense secretary was certain that he and his colleagues — while chatting on a free platform that has never been approved for chats about national security or classified intelligence — had locked everything down and created a secure channel of communication.

Of course, we now know that Team Trump was most certainly not “clean on OPSEC,” Hegseth’s confidence notwithstanding.

What’s more, while there was some discussion about the nature of the shared details, there’s no denying the chat did include highly sensitive information about times and targets, much of which was put there by Hegseth himself.

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” Hegseth told his colleagues in the chat. “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME) — also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s).” At one point, the defense secretary literally wrote, “THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP.”

Now the Post, with a report that has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, tells readers that the strike plans shared by Hegseth originated from a classified email written by Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the top commander overseeing U.S. military operations in the Middle East. The article added:

CBS News ran a related report pointing to the same revelations.

Despite all of this, a Pentagon spokesperson told the Post, “The Department stands behind its previous statements: no classified information was shared via Signal. As we’ve said repeatedly, nobody was texting war plans and the success of the Department’s recent operations — from Operation Rough Rider to Operation Midnight Hammer — are proof that our operational security and discipline are top notch.”

The second part of this defense doesn’t seem to make logical sense — the success of the mission doesn’t necessarily mean that Hegseth was responsible with sensitive national security secrets — and the first part appears to be at odds with the available information about what transpired.

Complicating matters, this is not the only area of potential trouble for the former Fox News host who was confirmed despite bipartisan opposition. Politico published a report last week, which also hasn’t been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, that noted two related IG investigations that are also ongoing.

It’s worth noting for context that the existence of these reports suggests not only that Hegseth is facing serious scrutiny, but also that some officials within the Pentagon want the public to know that Hegseth is facing serious scrutiny. Watch this space.

Would somebody please just fire Hegseth’s sorry ass and get it done!!!

Maddow Blog | Investigators in Signal chat probe reportedly found damaging evidence on Hegseth
The Pentagon inspector general’s investigation into Pete Hegseth is ongoing, and new reporting suggests it’s not going well for the defense secretary.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/maddow-blog-investigators-in-signal-chat-probe-reportedly-found-damaging-evidence-on-hegseth/ar-AA1JdsxH

MSNBC: The demise of Trump’s lawsuit against Bob Woodward offers a reminder to his other targets

Posted on by
Reply

The demise of the president’s case against the journalist offers a broader lesson about the benefits of fighting back — and the folly of appeasement.

Late Friday, Donald Trump announced a new lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal’s publisher, corporate parent and individual reporters who wrote an article about Jeffrey Epstein that the president didn’t like. The civil suit — which the Republican described as “a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit” for reasons unknown — marked a historical rarity: There’s no modern precedent for a sitting U.S. president suing a newspaper over an article.

But as it turns out, right around the same time that Trump’s lawyers were filing their WSJ case, their client received some related news. NBC News reported:

A federal judge on Friday dismissed President Donald Trump’s nearly $50 million lawsuit against the journalist Bob Woodward for publishing tapes from interviews for his 2020 best-seller ‘Rage’ as an audiobook. The decision by U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe in Manhattan is a victory for Woodward, his publisher Simon & Schuster and its former owner Paramount Global.

In case anyone needs a fresher, it was in early 2023 when the Republican first filed a civil suit against Woodward and his publisher, claiming that the longtime journalist did not get his consent to release audio recordings of their interviews. Trump sought nearly $50 million in damages.

He’ll end up with nothing but legal bills. (The judge in this case was appointed by George W. Bush.)

The outcome was hardly unfamiliar. When Trump sued CNN and demanded $475 million, the case was thrown out; when he sued The Washington Post, the case was thrown out; and when he sued The New York Times, seeking $100 million, the case was thrown out.

In each instance, the Republican and his legal team filed highly dubious, politically motivated cases, each of which was based on claims that can charitably be described as “thin,” and in each instance, the journalists and their employers fought back — and won.

To be sure, there are some notable exceptions. When Trump filed a similarly weak case against ABC News, the network agreed to a controversial $15 million settlement with the president. More recently, in response to a bizarre lawsuit from the president, CBS News’ corporate parent agreed to an even more controversial $16 million settlement.

The broader lessons should be obvious. For one thing, those wildly unnecessary out-of-court settlements only emboldened Trump, effectively encouraging him to sue other news organizations that bothered him for one reason or another. Indeed, the president explicitly referenced the ABC News and CBS News payments when outing his new civil suit against The Wall Street Journal.

For another, the recent pattern suggests the only way to lose in a fight against Trump is to pursue a course rooted in appeasement. It’s true when it comes to law firms; it’s true when it comes to higher education; and it’s true in his court fights against news organizations.

Since Rupert Murdoch is unlikely to roll over and pay bribe money in feasance to King Donald, this will be King Donald’s biggest legal flop yet.

The demise of Trump’s lawsuit against Bob Woodward offers a reminder to his other targets
The demise of the president’s case against the journalist offers a broader lesson about the benefits of fighting back — and the folly of appeasement.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/demise-trumps-lawsuit-bob-woodward-offers-reminder-targets-rcna219958

MSNBC: Maddow Blog | Trump’s response to intelligence assessment on Iran strikes takes an incoherent turn

Posted on by
Reply

The intelligence about the U.S. strikes on Iranian targets can’t be conclusive and inconclusive at the same time.

As Donald Trump arrived in the Netherlands this week for an annual NATO summit, the American president reportedly hoped to take a victory lap of sorts, celebrating the success of the preemptive military strikes he approved targeting Iranian nuclear sites. As is often the case with the Republican, reality quickly got in the way.

On Tuesday, the world learned of a preliminary intelligence assessment from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, which jolted the public and political debate. As NBC News confirmed, the initial assessment concluded that the U.S. airstrikes “were not as effective” as Trump claimed, and the mission set Iran’s nuclear program “back by only three to six months.”

Looney bird Trump is in denial:

Pressed on the efficacy of the mission and the accuracy of the intelligence, Trump said, “The intelligence was very inconclusive. The intelligence says we don’t know. It could have been very severe. That’s what the intelligence says. So I guess that’s correct. But I think we can take the ‘we don’t know.’ It was very severe. It was obliteration.”

Or put another way, according to the American president, U.S. intelligence officials don’t know, but he does know.

Trump’s response to intelligence assessment on Iran strikes takes an incoherent turn
The intelligence about the U.S. strikes on Iranian targets can’t be conclusive and inconclusive at the same time.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-response-intelligence-assessment-iran-strikes-takes-incoherent-rcna214937