That describes it perfectly. Trump makes for strange bedfellows.

I always point back to this Politico article to remind people that the "white populist" strain Trump exploited was available for any candidate should they wish to use it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/1...wd-boos-014479

File This Under "Bold Predictions" Department

We've now had two Presidents, (i.e. Nixon and Clinton), who have amply demonstrated that a President can look the American people in the eye and lie through his teeth. (In Nixon's case it was: "I am not a crook!" In Clinton's case it was: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Ms. Lewinsky." For their lies, both men were treated to a ride down Impeachment Avenue.

Donald Trump is demonstrating a lot of what prosecutors refer to as "mens re". Translated from the latin, "mens re" means "a consciousness of guilt" or acting in a manner which betrays guilt. We have (not yet) seen the evidence, but, in firing Comey and attempting to deny any culpability while simultaneously trying to halt the investigation, Trump is exhibiting the same behaviors as Nixon and Clinton. Of course, it's possible that Trump is totally innocent of any wrongdoing, his "enemies" are out to get him, and there really is no "there there" - as Mr. Trump (and his defenders) like to insist. But if that were the case, considering the stakes, Trump would be cooperating with investigators in order to help them reach the conclusion that there is indeed no "there there". Trump's actions, to this point, have been anything but the actions of a totally innocent man. Considering the fact that Trump could get impeached and removed from office if he refuses to come clean, Trump is acting more like a guilty man rather than an innocent man wrongly accused.

Again, we won't know until the facts come out, but I suspect Trump is guilty of something - something possibly impeachable. (Considering his past complaints about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and how he would like to see that law repealed, it would not be that much of a surprise if Trump has violated the FCPA.) If Trump has violated laws related to his business dealings, that would also explain why he refuses to release his tax returns.

Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and General Flynn are all individuals currently under investigation who have had "business dealings" - or acted in some capacity - for Donald Trump. (One of these men, General Flynn, is asking for immunity from prosecution - a request which has [thus far] been denied.) If any (or all) of these men have violated the law, there's a good chance prosecutors will go after them first - just like prosecutors went after Liddy, Hunt, and the five Watergate burglars before they trained their guns [eventually] on Nixon. If any of those four men have knowledge [of criminal activity] that can directly implicate President Trump, Trump will (obviously) not want those men testifying in open court. So here's my "bold" prediction ...

By firing Mr. Comey, Donald Trump has proven that he is capable of anything. Consequently, if any of the four men mentioned above is indicted and headed for trial, don't be surprised if Trump exercises his unconditional pardon power and grants blanket pardons to all four of them.

Such an action, if it occurs, will probably guarantee that Trump is impeached and removed from office, but that will beat having all his dirty laundry aired in public.

If you are going to use a Latin term, especially one with legal significance, at least spell and define it correctly.

If the people made Trump, what mad(e) the people?

Obviously. That incident is a great microcosm, a very small example of the fact that the elites are being dragooned into this as much as they are driving it, BUT they are still very complicit. John McCain's impulse is to tell the dumb old lady to STFU and stop saying Obama is a Muslim is surely real, but if the winds of time are pushing dumb old whites into power, John McCain is going to be on that train, he's not going to derail it. John McCain is symbolic and emblematic of that. See him today, just a leaf in the wind meandering around Washington jabbing at Trump but ultimately falling into line when the endorsements matter and the vote tallies come.

That is to say, for the monied elites and big business, and for the politicians they empower like McCain and the Bushes and the Romneys, and now by extension, guys like Trump: it's probably better for business and better for their cocktail parties and better for stability and better for their marriages and their vacations and better for the black guy they know at the gym IF they can achieve their goals (low tax, less regulation, stability, nothing much rocking the boat) *and* keep the angry white hordes at bay. That's ideal. They like the norms of cosmopolitan liberalsm, that's why they all live in San Francisco and New York and the Beltway and none of them would get stuck in western PA or Crawford County WI or whatever other Rust Belt or bumble**** town for longer than their campaigns would require.

In the end though, they will deal and enter into second-best and third-best compromises if they have to, to stave of drastic redistribution schemes and significant reorganization of the state on a basis that takes more from them. That they hate most of all and generally won't tolerate, and if they can't win with a smile and cosmopolitan virtues and religious and racial pluralism, they'll deploy harsher solutions and tools. They'll let Trump and Bannon and Fox and Rush rile up the whites and hitch a ride on the bandwagon.

I've long not recommended books because it's usually not helpful on a message board where links to articles and stuff are better, but I think we could all be doing more long-form reading as a cure for Trumpism. In any case Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism is worth a read here; it's pretty exhaustive on the topic of the origins of fascism and the intersections of class. And the fascist movements of the 20th century in Germany, in Italy, the Hispanidad movements, etc. -- business elites, old wealth, and the classic aristocracy started out quite aloof to fascism. It was only as the threat of communist parties and socialist movements and revolutions rose that they saw allying themselves with fascists (generally populated and started by the middle class and middle class interests) as acceptable. In Germany, in Italy, in Spain - the elites found fascism a worry initially; they eventually formed a coalition, ultimately as pragmatic choices to remedy against what they saw as worst-case scenario outcomes (socialism, communism).

Maybe glibly, and I realize I'm going to trigger people, the norms and whims of elites here in the US and elsewhere SEEMS to be something like:

Cosmopolitan liberalism > fascism > socialism/communism

As cosmopolitan liberalism is in the midst of a global rough spot (France, South Korea recent elections noted), and the forces inequality and increasing social isolation and segregation increases all over the western world animate angst and anger among the masses, the elites should not be counted on to stand guard, and I do think continued lurching (or accelerating) steps to right-wing authoritarianism are definitely on the table; they're in the range here. John McCain might poo poo the fascist sensibilities in his midst but he's on board if it comes to it and hard choices have to be made.

Can't wait for the domestic flight laptop explosion that exposes all this insanity.

Like there is no way someone who intended to use an inflight electronics device to blow things up couldn't get inside the US first before doing so. In fact for maximum effect that would be the preferred option.

The thing that is going to expose the insanity is when a laptop with an ion battery catches on fire midflight and there's no ability for anyone to put it out and the flight goes down due to a fire that would have otherwise been put out were the device in the cabin and the battery catches on fire with humans and a fire extinguisher nearby.

Are there any documented cases anywhere of a laptop not being used spontaneously combusting? Serious question.

There have been news stories in the past about that happening.

Anonymous sources?

Speaking of Comey (), do we have a running tally of leaks since the Tuesday Massacre? Seems to be around 3 or 4 dozen so far.

You know, dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported.

They've been suspected in a number of plane crashes - although as far as I can remember its always been in the context of a load of batteries being transported as cargo and not a single laptop in a passengers luggage.

Although we know it happens with all sorts of devices. One big risk is that most of the time when people shut their laptops they're not actually turning them off. And if there is a bug or something goes wrong the computer can not actually suspend itself or worst case get stuck in a cycle using 100% cpu.

I ****ed up an older laptop once by putting it in my laptop bag and it didn't suspend correctly. When I pulled it out 2 hours later it was unbelievably hot and it was fried.

The risk of catastrophic fire from laptops in is obviously tiny, especially since there are smoke detectors and fire suppression systems in cargo holds. But so is the risk from a terrorist using the laptop as a bomb. My guess is that the batteries in the cargo hold is the bigger risk, but who knows.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/investi...412459303.html

re laptops - just have a look at the ground crew throwing about luggage next time you fly. Obviously a reasonable risk of a laptop/battery being damaged and causing a fire.

Agent Rogersz:
It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.

"You want to question when he hires, when he fires. That's inappropriate," she said. "He'll do it when he wants to."

What's the point of doing an interview if you're going to act like a stupid c-word when CNN asks your most anticipated question?

Because there's a whole lotta people that love seeing her act like that to the fake media.

Question: (paraphrasing)
Do you believe Russians, through hacking, tried to influence 2016 election?

Unanimously, including acting FBI director, the intelligence officers answered yes.

Trump has to be livid.

Is Trump the only person left in government who doesn't (publicly) accept that? Or does he accept it too and just not want to admit he had help?

It would be UNBELIEVABLY loltastic if Trump is innocent in the Russian hacking but got pot committed to the cover-up because he can't admit it occurred.

I actually think this is by far the most probable scenario. Can you imagine Putin trusting Trump to keep secrets?

So the guy under comey ain't gonna last long either.

It's a standard politician downfall story. It's not the original 'incident' its the coverup.

With Trump it's just going to be magnified because his instinct to do whatever it takes to be seen in the best light possible is so crazy strong.

It is kinda amazing that trump might go down simply never getting off the flynn titanic, one literally everyone told him to jump off.

I think there's a pretty strong chance of the latter being the case. IMO, he has very little idea of what is actually going on. Like, in his mind, he didn't make any explicit tit for tat deals with Russians himself, so he just genuinely can't grasp the concept of how he could possible be held responsible. At the same time, he's surrounded by people in bed with the Russians, but he's not even thinking about what that means beyond what is said on the TV. Finally, he's never been held responsible for any of the ridiculous lies he's told for his entire life, much less the campaign and presidency. So he's just going to keep coming out and saying crazy blatantly false stuff because it sounds good to him at the time. He's basically too stupid to think about how it might hurt him going forward.

Either that or 4D chess masters pwns everyone again.