Trump and Yemen-Hate Rules

THE ABSURD TIMES

Charles I of England was deposed and finally beheaded by Cromwell as part of a revolution, based mainly on the behavior of a bad King. 

Monarchies all over Europe protested and had issued tracts and invectives against the English people for this behavior.  Cromwell had the good sense to choose Milton as his Latin Secretary (sort of a Press Secretary as all "important" documents were written in Latin) to defend the actions of the English people and no person came even close to matching Milton's skill. 

Of course, his task was made far easier by the fact that Charles I was terrible.  We are faced with someone almost as bad, and certainly more stupid.

It was not until the Restoration that the New King, Charles II assumed control that someone was able to defend the monarchy.  It amounted to saying that a good king is better than a host of morons.  It is by Dryden.

Above are sentiments more closely aligned with the attitudes of most Americans and against Trump.

MSM covered a demonstration against corruption in Moscow making it sound like the police were brutal and aggressive. I swear that it reminded of the show at the N.Y. Republican Convention for Bush II with it's "designated protest areas".  Cops went on a riot.  It was not close to as violent as the police riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

Everyone seemed to be watching Sessions.  I hate that accent as it reminds me of the racist morons who follow and support Trump.  Trump has made bigotry and hate a bit of a fad.

Trump has recently increased attacks in Yemen and here is some information about a cholera epidemic there:

In Yemen, a civilian is dying nearly every hour from a massive cholera outbreak, as the ongoing U.S.-backed, Saudi-led bombing campaign and naval blockade has devastated the country's health, sanitation and water systems. The World Health Organization says the number of suspected cholera cases in Yemen has now reached 101,820 and continues to rise, accounting for 859 deaths. Yemen's healthcare system is also on the verge of collapse as many hospitals have shut down because of the ongoing U.S.-backed Saudi war. Only 45 percent of Yemen's hospitals are still operational. We speak to guests Dr. Mariam Aldogani and Anas Shahari of Save the Children Yemen.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In Yemen, medical groups are warning an outbreak of cholera has infected more than 116,000 people. The World Health Organization says the water-borne illness has claimed the lives of at least 859, and Oxfam estimates cholera is claiming one life every hour in Yemen. Children under the age of 15 account for 46 percent of the cases. The WHO says the number of cases could reach 300,000, as the outbreak has now spread to 20 of Yemen's 22 provinces. Yemen's healthcare system is also on the verge of collapse, as many hospitals have shut down because of the ongoing U.S.-backed Saudi war. Only 45 percent of Yemen's hospitals are still operational. This is Dr. Hussein El Haddad, the director of one of the few hospitals in Sana'a that is still functioning.

DR. HUSSEIN EL HADDAD: [translated] The situation is very bad. The children that are suffering from cholera are countless, and there aren't enough beds. The technical know-how in the hospital is also insufficient to deal with the situation we are facing.

AMY GOODMAN: The cholera epidemic comes amidst a U.S.-backed, Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen and naval blockade that's left Yemen's sanitation, water and health infrastructure in shambles. The United Nations warns some 19 million of Yemen's 28 million people need some form of aid, with many of them at risk of famine. This is U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Stephen O'Brien addressing the United Nations Security Council late last month.

STEPHEN O'BRIEN: Yemen now has the ignominy of being the world's largest food security crisis, with more than 17 million people who are food-insecure, 6.8 million of whom are one step away from famine. Crisis is not coming. It is not even looming. It is here today, on our watch, and ordinary people are paying the price. ... It is important to bear in mind that malnutrition and cholera are interconnected. Weakened and hungry people are more likely to contract cholera and less able to survive it. According to estimates, 150,000 cases are projected for the next six months, in addition to the broadly 60,000 current suspected cases since last April with 500 associated deaths. The scale of this latest outbreak is, as well as being depressingly predictable, a direct consequence of the conflict. And had the parties to the conflict cared, the outbreak was avoidable.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Stephen O'Brien addressing the U.N. Security Council last month. President Donald Trump signed a series of arms deals with Saudi Arabia totaling a record $110 billion during a visit to the Saudi capital. The arms deal includes tanks, artillery, ships, helicopters, missile defense systems and cybersecurity technology. United Nations monitors have warned previous Saudi-led attacks on Yemen could constitute crimes against humanity. Over 10,000 people have died since the Saudi bombing campaign began in 2015.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Sana'a, Yemen, where we're joined by Anas Shahari of Save the Children Yemen. He joins us from the capital.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us. Tell us the scope of the problem.

ANAS SHAHARI: The problem is very massive—excuse me. The problem is very massive. It's like we are facing a very critical situation here. A lot of people are suffering from cholera. I just received an SMS from one friend in a village just before this interview. He's telling me that the cholera is spreading in Hajjah governorate, and people are struggling to get medications. And you can imagine, every day the numbers are increasing. The upsurge is very scary. We have to deal with all of these cases as Yemenis and humanitarian organizations are struggling to respond to the needs of those people with very short funding. You know that Yemen is facing a hard economic situation. The health system is collapsing. We have a lot of social services that are not available. I can give you examples. For example, just a month or more than a month ago, garbage collectors were on strike because they were not paid their salaries. And it was rainy. And this was one of the reasons that contributed to the cholera outbreak, which is the second outbreak, and it's three times more horrific than the previous one.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And how are medical personnel able to function, given the continuing air war of Saudi Arabia as well as the armed conflicts within the country?

ANAS SHAHARI: You know, people in cities where armed conflict is now ongoing are suffering the most, because they don't have hospitals to go to. There are no medical staff. And generally, people in Yemen are suffering because salaries have not been paid to the public servants for about nine months. This gives doctors, nurses, everybody a hard time, because they cannot go to hospitals. They cannot afford anything. I can give you an example. For example, now children in Yemen—8.1 million children— cannot afford healthcare services, cannot afford water to drink or sanitation services. This number is very, very large, if we are talking about the health system and the water—the water grip in the country. Every time I go to a hospital, I keep hearing doctors complaining because they haven't received their salaries to come to the hospital. And you can imagine a doctor can barely afford transportation to go to a hospital to save lives. And recently, when I was in a hospital, I saw a lot of people lying on the ground, because the outbreak happened suddenly. And people went to a hospital here in Sana'a, and they were lying on the ground. They were staying in tents in an isolation unit in a civilian hospital here. It was a very horrific situation. And everybody was suspecting cholera in their houses. For example, I always—I am always suspicious after I come back from a hospital, like maybe I will eat something that will infect my body with cholera, then I'll need to deal with it just like everybody else. So it's a whole package of hardship that we're facing in Yemen.

AMY GOODMAN: Anas Shahari, we have just reached one of your colleagues, Dr. Mariam Aldogani with Save the Children in Yemen. Right now she's joining us in the field from Hudaydah governorate in Yemen, where she's treating cholera patients. The phone connection is not very good, so, folks, listen carefully. Dr. Aldogani, thank you so much for joining us. Explain what you're seeing where you are.

DR. MARIAM ALDOGANI: Welcome. Yes, I'm in Hudaydah governorate, one of the affected governorates suffering from cholera.

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you see? You're treating people with cholera now?

DR. MARIAM ALDOGANI: We [inaudible] treated people of cholera. We see a lot of case—we saw a lot of cases in a diarrhea treatment center, which is—I am in Hudaydah. There is two main hospital centers for treating cholera, a lot of cases there. There's a problem that the [inaudible] and with very hot weather. And even the fuel is very expensive. And because there is no electricity, so imagine, with cholera and the very harsh weather, the situation has become worse. Due to the shortage of medical supply and treatment, we try to do the best. And also, as my colleague Anas mentioned, the health system collapsed. There is no salary, no [inaudible] of the hospitals or health centers. This has made—the situation is very bad.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what are you calling—

DR. MARIAM ALDOGANI: And, by the way, most of the cases, they are children. For example, I can give you a data. Since the middle of May to now, [inaudible] hospital received more than 1,700 cases and four death case reported.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We're trying to go back to Anas Shahari. What do you think the world needs to do, or what are you calling for in terms of assistance to the people of Yemen at this time?

ANAS SHAHARI: Well, Save the Children and the wider humanitarian community are urgently requiring more funds to expand the response and to manage and mitigate and prevent this outbreak. And we need also the international community to contribute to this crisis, which is considered the biggest crisis in the world, and increase the funding here. We also have a message to the U.N. and to the conflicting parties to facilitate and resume the public-sector salaries, like to put pressures on whoever is concerned and just to resume the public-sector salaries so that people can go back to work in hospitals and other governmental institutions. We also ask all conflicting parties to facilitate our access to the areas where we need to go and save lives.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this month, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused President Trump of double standards, saying his administration turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's bombing of Yemen while claiming to promote human rights around the world.

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI: [translated] It's almost two-and-a-half years since they, the Saudis, have been bombing Yemen, not military installations, but streets, markets, mosques, hospitals and civilian houses, killing innocent people—women, children, adults. They're killing everyone. And then they—the U.S. president goes to them, Saudi Arabia, and stands by their side, and they chat with each other, they dance with each other, and they speak of human rights. And then they place sanctions against the Islamic establishment of Iran because of human rights.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Anas Shahari, can you talk about the connection between war and cholera?

ANAS SHAHARI: Well, the war—the war has destroyed all the—like most of the infrastructure we have here in the country. We don't have any sanitation system. The water network is destroyed. We don't have electricity. People who need to boil water before drinking it do not have the cooking gas. Fuel is very expensive, as Dr. Mariam said. The economy of the country is collapsed, has already collapsed. The health system has collapsed. I mean, the war has destroyed everything in this country. And as a Yemeni person, what I am looking for here is to stop this war, to find peaceful solutions between the parties in order for the children, who are paying the heaviest price, to continue their lives and to see brighter futures.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of the refugees, people fleeing Yemen to escape the violence and the bombing and the collapse of the—basically, of the total infrastructure of the country, are people continuing to flee the country?

ANAS SHAHARI: In the beginning, large numbers of people were fleeing, and about 3 million people fled their houses. But now this number has decreased. But people are moving from place to place, because the conflict sometimes arises in some areas. For example, in an area in Taiz, al-Mokha, there was a conflict that erupted, and people had to leave their homes. And this is also leading to other problems like children dropping classes, not going to school anymore. And now we are left with children that are abandoned behind, and they don't know what their future holds.

AMY GOODMAN: Last month, thousands of Yemenis rallied in the capital Sana'a to protest the U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia and President Trump's visit to Riyadh. This is the Yemeni journalist Nasser Al-Rabeey.

NASSER AL-RABEEY: We are here today to say no for terrorism, no for American terrorism. And we are here to say to Trump: "You kill Yemenis with Saudi hands. You support Qaeda/ISIS by supporting the Saudi Wahhabi regime."

AMY GOODMAN: Anas, can you respond, as we wrap up?

ANAS SHAHARI: Well, I am a Yemeni person, and I can tell you what we need in this country. We need, number one, peace. And then, number two, we need increasing funds to respond to the humanitarian need. We don't need any more weapons to come to this country. We don't need any more war. We need to live in peace. We need to respond to the needs of those outside who are starving, who are dying because of cholera, who do not find the most basic services and needs in life.

AMY GOODMAN: Anas Shahari, we thank you for being with us, media officer for Save the Children, speaking to us from Sana'a, Yemen. We wish you the very best yourself, as well, and for your protection.

ANAS SHAHARI: Thank you.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Comey's Remarks

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: Latuff pointed this out three years ago.

Since this is in the Congressional Record, I suppose it is in the Public Domain.  However, I found it, of all places, on CNBC.  The woman at the bottom
deserves credit.

Statement for the Record
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
James B. Comey
June 8, 2017

Chairman Burr, Ranking Member Warner, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I was asked to testify today to describe for you my interactions with President-Elect and President Trump on subjects that I understand are of interest to you. I have not included every detail from my conversations with the President, but, to the best of my recollection, I have tried to include information that may be relevant to the Committee.

January 6 Briefing

I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI's counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI's leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.

It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work. The Bureau's goal in a counter-intelligence investigation is to understand the technical and human methods that hostile foreign powers are using to influence the United States or to steal our secrets. The FBI uses that understanding to disrupt those efforts. Sometimes disruption takes the form of alerting a person who is targeted for recruitment or influence by the foreign power. Sometimes it involves hardening a computer system that is being attacked. Sometimes it involves "turning" the recruited person into a double-agent, or publicly calling out the behavior with sanctions or expulsions of embassy-based intelligence officers. On occasion, criminal prosecution is used to disrupt intelligence activities.

Because the nature of the hostile foreign nation is well known, counterintelligence investigations tend to be centered on individuals the FBI suspects to be witting or unwitting agents of that foreign power. When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will "open an investigation" on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted.

In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI's leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump's reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.

January 27 Dinner

The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.

The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI's traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not "reliable" in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody's side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

A few moments later, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty." I didn't move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because "problems" come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.

Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, "I need loyalty." I replied, "You will always get honesty from me." He paused and then said, "That's what I want, honest loyalty." I paused, and then said, "You will get that from me." As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase "honest loyalty" differently, but I decided it wouldn't be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn't happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren't, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

As was my practice for conversations with President Trump, I wrote a detailed memo about the dinner immediately afterwards and shared it with the senior leadership team of the FBI.

February 14 Oval Office Meeting

On February 14, I went to the Oval Office for a scheduled counterterrorism briefing of the President. He sat behind the desk and a group of us sat in a semi-circle of about six chairs facing him on the other side of the desk. The Vice President, Deputy Director of the CIA, Director of the National CounterTerrorism Center, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and I
were in the semi-circle of chairs. I was directly facing the President, sitting between the Deputy CIA Director and the Director of NCTC. There were quite a few others in the room, sitting behind us on couches and chairs.

The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me.

When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, "I want to talk about Mike Flynn." Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn't done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify.

The President then made a long series of comments about the problem with leaks of classified information – a concern I shared and still share. After he had spoken for a few minutes about leaks, Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock and I could see a group of people waiting behind him. The President waved at him to close the door, saying he would be done shortly. The door closed.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."

The President returned briefly to the problem of leaks. I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock, making my way through the large group of people waiting there, including Mr. Priebus and the Vice President.

I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership. I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign. I could be wrong, but I took him to be focusing on what had just happened with Flynn's departure and the controversy around his account of his phone calls. Regardless, it was very concerning, given the FBI's role as an independent investigative agency.

The FBI leadership team agreed with me that it was important not to infect the investigative team with the President's request, which we did not intend to abide. We also concluded that, given that it was a one-on-one conversation, there was nothing available to corroborate my account. We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role.

After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President's request.

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with Attorney General Sessions in person to pass along the President's concerns about leaks. I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply. For the reasons discussed above, I did not mention that the President broached the FBI's potential investigation of General Flynn.

March 30 Phone Call

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as "a cloud" that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. He asked what we could do to "lift the cloud." I responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could, and that there would be great benefit, if we didn't find anything, to our having done the work well. He agreed, but then re-emphasized the problems this was causing him.

Then the President asked why there had been a congressional hearing about Russia the previous week – at which I had, as the Department of Justice directed, confirmed the investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. I explained the demands from the leadership of both parties in Congress for more information, and that Senator Grassley had even held up the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General until we briefed him in detail on the investigation. I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, "We need to get that fact out." (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)

The President went on to say that if there were some "satellite" associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn't done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren't investigating him.

In an abrupt shift, he turned the conversation to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he hadn't brought up "the McCabe thing" because I had said McCabe was honorable, although McAuliffe was close to the Clintons and had given him (I think he meant Deputy Director McCabe's wife) campaign money. Although I didn't understand why the President was bringing this up, I repeated that Mr. McCabe was an honorable person.

He finished by stressing "the cloud" that was interfering with his ability to make deals for the country and said he hoped I could find a way to get out that he wasn't being investigated. I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente (AG Sessions had by then recused himself on all Russia-related matters), to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later.

April 11 Phone Call

On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I "get out" that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that "the cloud" was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

He said he would do that and added, "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know." I did not reply or ask him what he meant by "that thing." I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

Christine WangNews Associate

Another Week of Insanity -- Make America Sane Again

The Absurd Times

I do not remember the source, but this is an advance copy of the new cover of Mad Magazine, apparently still in print.  If there is a problem with copyright, I'll be happy to delete it.  I've seen enough, anyway.

A week or so of Insanity

by

Eman Nep

The question asked on media today is "Is America Safe?"  The real question should be "Is America Sane?"  It is at least befuddled.

Another bombing in England dismissed by Trump by misquoting the Mayor of London (a Moslem, so it fits right in with practice).  He actually said that citizens should not be concerned by the increased police visibility.  Some reports are that he got the quote from Drudge (or Sludge).  Sending prayers?  Trump's prayers?  I'll leave it at that.  Trump's tweet is both gauche and incorrect and also self-serving as he seems intent on forbidding any Moslem from entering the country.

The Mayor was asked for a response, and his office issued a statement to the effect that "The Mayor is far too occupied with other, more important matters, to be bothered with responding to Donald Trumps tweets," or words to that effect.

In Oregon, an advanced state, there was a demonstration against Trump.  His supporters are demonstrating as well. In addition, a group of people dressed in black assembled to "meet violence with violence," as I understand it.  I have heard no statement from this crowd, but the underlying idea is not that much out of line.  In practice, I am also ignorant.  They call themselves "anti-fascists".

I can tell you my impression of the typical Trump supporter.  I am reminded of a statement made by Gene Wilder in a Mel Brook's film called "Blazing Saddles."  The new sheriff, a black man, in a western town is not well received by the populace and is somewhat depressed.  He is consoled by Gene Wilder who says "These folks are the slat of the earth, the common clay, you know, morons."

Bill Maher is now being attacked for using the "N" word.  Well, white people should not use the "N" word.  Furthermore, they should not wear baseball caps backwards.  It is nuts, unless they have been catchers and even they prefer to wear them properly.  Come on guys, have a little respect for baseball, if nothing else.  You are not "cool", and that is it.

Trump's visit to Europe brought back the stereotype of the "Ugly American."  Merkel and Macron know better, but even they see Trump as an Ugly American.  So do I.

The whole Kathy Griffith episode is ridiculous.  I have never considered her a good comic and still don't.  Baron Trump is in Trauma, we are told.  Has he not been in such a state for years now?  I would have been.

Is the Comey testimony such a big deal?  I have no idea.  Still, it will be interesting for awhile.

Trump said he represents Pittsburgh, not Paris.  The Mayor of Pittsburgh said "Hold on, there.  We are with the rest of the world."  At one time, Pittsburgh shared the bottom of the National League in Baseball with Chicago and so I enjoy them, anyway. 

One of Trump's supporters said in his defense that he was avoiding the example of Chamberlain.  It is about time to end references to Hitler and Chamberlain with a few facts.  England was not ready for war with Germany at the time, while Germany, with its citizens suffering from what out leaders now like to call "austerity" (only in far greater degree) was preparing for years – with the help of Henry Ford and other Capitalists.  More to the point: Hitler always maintained that Chamberlain "double-crossed" him simply to give England time to prepare for its defense, time it desperately needed.  Whether this was Chamberlain's intention or not, that was the effect it had.  Our own preparation, increasing our war production (it is time to stop the façade of the term "Defense") and budget at the expense of programs at home is hardly benign.

The following interview concerns the recent attack and it is reasonably short:

Twelve people have been arrested in London after three attackers killed seven people and injured 48 more on Saturday night. The three attackers were shot dead by police. It's the third terror attack in the U.K. in three months. British Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed a sweeping review of the nation's counterterrorism strategy. All of this comes as the country gears up for national parliamentary elections scheduled for this Thursday. Prime Minister May has also called for increased web surveillance so the internet is no longer a "safe space" for terrorists. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump used the London attacks to call for the United States to impose his proposed Muslim travel ban. Here to discuss all of this with Democracy Now! is Guardian columnist Paul Mason.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: British Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed a sweeping review of the nation's counterterrorism strategy, declaring "enough is enough," following a terror attack in London Saturday that left seven dead and dozens injured. British police are holding 11 people. Attackers rammed a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and then stabbed people in nearby Borough Market. The three attackers were shot dead by the police. This is a witness to the attack.

WITNESS: It was fear on the streets of London, basically. I've not experienced that before. Been there for 12-odd years, basically. I've never seen that kind of fear, especially on a night out. And it was horrific to be involved in that kind of situation.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: This is the third terror attack in the U.K. in three months, following the car and knife attack on Westminster Bridge in March, in which five people were killed, and the Manchester bombing less than two weeks ago, in which 22 people were killed. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for all three of the attacks.

Britain's national elections are scheduled this Thursday. The Conservative Party and the opposition Labour Party temporarily suspended campaigning for the parliamentary elections out of respect for the victims, while the right-wing U.K. Independence Party said it would continue holding campaign events.

During an interview this morning, Prime Minister May chaired a meeting of the government's emergency committee Cobra with intelligence and security chiefs and said response to the attacks is ongoing.

PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY: JTAC—that's the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre—have confirmed that the national threat level remains at severe. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. The police have reported that they have put additional security measures in place to protect the public and provide reassurance, and this includes additional security measures at a number of bridges in London. The police are working hard to establish the identity of all of those who were tragically killed or injured in the event on Saturday night, but it is now clear that, sadly, victims came from a number of nationalities. This was an attack on London and the United Kingdom, but it was also an attack on the free world.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Prime Minister Theresa May vowed Sunday to conduct a sweeping review of Britain's counterterrorism strategy, saying "enough is enough." London's Mayor Sadiq Khan also spoke out after the attack.

MAYOR SADIQ KHAN: There aren't words to describe the grief and anger that our city will be feeling today. I'm appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent Londoners and bystanders enjoying their Saturday night. There can be no justification for the acts of these terrorists. And I'm quite clear: We will never let them win, nor will we allow them to cower our city or Londoners. ...

Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed. One of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be. I'm reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world. But we always evolve and review ways to make sure that we remain as safe as we possibly can.

AMY GOODMAN: Sadiq Khan is London's first Muslim mayor. Following his remarks, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to imply the mayor had played down the severity of the attack, tweeting, quote, "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!'" Well, in fact, Khan had been speaking about the increased police presence in the city when he said there was no reason to be alarmed. A spokesman for Khan later dismissed Trump's comments, responding the mayor, quote, "has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump's ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police—including armed officers—on the streets." In contrast to the president, other parts of the U.S. government tweeted more supportive comments. The acting U.S. ambassador to London, Lew Lukens, tweeted, "I commend the strong leadership of the @MayorofLondon as he leads the city forward after this heinous attack." All of this comes as British Prime Minister May has also called for increased web surveillance so the internet is no longer a, quote, "safe space for terrorists," unquote.

For more, we go to London, where we're joined by Paul Mason, columnist for The Guardian. His most recent book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future.

Paul, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you first respond to the attacks and then talk about Donald Trump's attack on Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London, as he tries to calm and reassure Londoners?

PAUL MASON: Well, good morning, Amy.

Here in London, I think it's worth saying we are implacable. We are—we're standing firm. You know, ordinary British people fought those attackers back with chairs and bottles and whatever they could lay their hands on. Two unarmed British policemen fought them with their bare hands until, only eight minutes after the first emergency call, a squad of armed police went in and shot them dead, eight minutes after the incident started. So we're pretty clear that we have an immediate response facility to this kind of terror attack, but the worrying thing is that they are increasing—three in the last 70 days, successful ones; five, it's been revealed today, thwarted. So we've got an increased tempo of jihadi attacks on civilians here, ordinary people on the streets of Britain.

And just to situate things, Borough Market is a Saturday night venue for people to go and have fun. It's a bit like Venice Beach in L.A. It's like the district below Manhattan Bridge in New York in Brooklyn. It's that kind of place. It's full. It's teeming with people, doing what? Drinking alcohol, wearing as little as possible as spring turns into summer here, men and women having fun together, men and men, women and women. It's a very liberal place. That's what those attackers were attacking. And the majority of British people, including the majority of Britain's 3 million Muslim population, say no to this.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Paul Mason, you've pointed out that the number of attacks in the U.K., this was the third that occurred in as many months. What do you think accounts for the fact that ISIS is stepping up its campaign there?

PAUL MASON: Well, we don't know. We don't see all the intelligence. But my hunch is this. My hunch is that the—that many Islamist militants and radicals across the world have been inspired by the caliphate of ISIS—that is, the semi-state they set up between Mosul and Raqqa in Syria. Now, the end of that state is soon to come. That's becoming pretty clear. Now, I think, in other words, the United States, Europe, Britain, most Western democracies have to worry about what happens when the Islamic caliphate, that ISIS wanted to set up and did indeed set up, is finished off and wiped out. What happens? I think—that's my hunch.

Now, the other problem we have here in Britain, and it's a real issue—I don't think it's going to be solved by any—by blanket travel bans. The real issue is that we have 23,000 people on a list held by our security services who are at risk of becoming dangerous terrorists. That's a very sobering number. Three thousand are on a watchlist that are being more or less continually under surveillance. And what's worrying is that the last three successful attacks involved people who were known to our intelligence services but considered not at risk of becoming violent. And we have to ask serious questions about how to deal with that, blame-free questions, because you have to learn from the experience.

But the political blame, especially this morning in Britain, is being laid at the door of the government, because the government cut 20,000 people from the police. That's about a sixth of the number. They cut 1,300 armed officers—again, a large—it's a big chunk of the armed contingent of the U.K. police. They cut them while doing what? Going to Libya, destabilizing Libya, pulling out of Libya, bombing Syria, taking part in numerous wars in the Middle East. The question is not the simply "Well, you know, if you attack a Middle Eastern country, expect terror." That's facile and simplistic. The question is: If you're going to take part in global—in a global intervention into countries like Libya, where you create chaos, what happens then? Do you—do you need a better and more well-resourced police force to deal with the potential threat that then comes to you?

We don't know yet who did the one—the attack on London Bridge. It is known who they are, but the names are not released. So we don't know what their national background is. But the guy who did the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester was a British Libyan, and it turns out his father was one of the fighters that the British had been allowing to travel freely between Britain and Libya because they were anti-Gaddafi.

So you have to join up the anti-terror aspect of policing and intelligence with the foreign policy. And this is what, many people are now concluding, our government just didn't do. They cut the police force. They dabbled in Middle Eastern politics. And it's—unfortunately, we're now paying the price of having a very much reduced capability in terms of what? Community policing. We want our cops to be out there walking around the streets where people live, picking up intelligence. It's come out this morning, for example, that one of the guys we think did Saturday night's knife attack had been kicked out of a mosque by that mosque, so the community had done its job. People had reported him to the anti-terror hotline. And then nothing's happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you know, this is all coming just before the national elections in Britain on Thursday. Prime Minister May's opponent in the election, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, raised just this issue you're talking about, criticizing her role in the ensuring that police maintain public safety. He had previously questioned the wisdom of a shoot-to-kill policy but said on Sunday the police should use whatever force is necessary to save lives.

JEREMY CORBYN: We are ready to consider whatever proposals may be brought forward by the police and security services more effectively to deal with the terrorist threat. If Labour is elected, I will commission a report from the security services on Friday on the changing nature of the terrorist threat. Our priority must be public safety. And I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life, as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March.

AMY GOODMAN: During his speech on Sunday, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn also made a scathing reference to President Trump.

JEREMY CORBYN: As London Mayor Sadiq Khan recognized, but which the current occupant of the White House has neither the grace nor the sense to grasp today, whether we are Muslim or Christian, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, we are united by our values, by a determination for a better world and that we can build a better society.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, that brings us back to, Paul Mason, Donald Trump's tweet against the first Muslim mayor of London and if you think even that weights in for the reason why he attacked Sadiq Khan.

PAUL MASON: There's not a single person on the right or left of politics who sympathizes with what Trump is doing. The British prime minister, Theresa May, has eventually been forced, this morning, to distance herself and criticize Trump, but she did it very reluctantly. Others are just furious with it, because it seems like Trump has a thing about Sadiq Khan. It seems like the fact that one of the biggest, you know, liberal global cities on Earth has a Muslim mayor seems to annoy Trump every time he thinks about it. But this is beyond a joke, because, you know, we are allies in the war on—in what is sensible about the war on terror, in finding out the terrorists, sharing intelligence and trying to target them and prevent their activities. We're supposed to be allies. And for Trump to carry on this knee-jerk political attack on a guy he clearly just doesn't like because the guy is a Muslim, let's be honest, is just—it's not helping. It's not helping.

Now, what else is not helping? Today, you reported earlier in your bulletin, we've got this huge diplomatic war breaking out in the Gulf, the very place both our countries have been obsessing about for 20 years. We've got Saudi Arabia attacking Qatar, closing its airspace, disrupting the economy of the region. Why? Because Saudi accuses Qatar, this Gulf monarchy, of being—supporting ISIS. The truth is, Saudi Arabia has been pumping out money and resources for extreme Islamism for decades. And so has—to be honest, Qatar has done its bit, as well, supporting the al-Qaeda groups in Syria, and so has Saudi Arabia. But why has this happened now? Because Trump visited Saudi Arabia. Trump gave Saudi Arabia some kind of green light to be much tougher rhetorically on Iran. And what is Saudi saying about Qatar this morning? Well, that Qatar is too soft on Iran. This, again, is Donald Trump meddling in issues and matters he just does not understand.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go back to Corbyn's speech on Sunday, because he also referred to Saudi Arabia, calling for, quote, "some difficult conversations" on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who he said were fueling extremist ideologies. He also accused the U.K. government, the May government, of, quote, "suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups."

JEREMY CORBYN: We do need to have some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who have funded and fueled extremist ideology. It's no good, Theresa May suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups. We have to get serious about cutting off their funding to these terror networks, including ISIS here and in the Middle East.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So that's Jeremy Corbyn speaking, Labour leader, speaking Sunday night. Now, the elections are just in a matter of days, on Thursday. So, can you talk about what impact you think this attack will have, if any, on the election? And also, explain what this report is that Corbyn says the May government is suppressing.

PAUL MASON: Yeah. Well, we're all trying not to politicize it. There are lessons to be learned from this attack that are just the technological and operational lessons of how you prevent and deter terrorism. But the fact is that Theresa May has visited Saudi Arabia, has sold arms to Saudi Arabia. And the report that's been suppressed is a report commissioned by her predecessor, David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister. We are told that it implicates Saudi Arabia in the funding of terrorism. And it is being buried and suppressed, which we think is a bad idea.

Now, your viewers must know that, by Friday, Corbyn could be prime minister. It's unlikely, because the Conservatives started this election with massive advantage. We have an even more biased press than you in the United States against the left and the Labour Party. But things are changing quite rapidly. And what I can tell your viewers is that if Corbyn is able to form a government on Friday, then the whole game is up for Western backing of these Wahhabi extreme dictators and head removers in Saudi Arabia, because Britain—yeah, sure, we are a country that's equally implicated, in the long term, in backing that regime and other unjust regimes in the Middle East. And if Corbyn gets into 10 Downing Street, he will stop that as a—you know, day one, hour one, second one. And, of course, that will cause a big problem for Trump. But I think it is time we, in the West, had a long look at what is happening. Sure, Iran, Saudi Arabia's traditional enemy, is equally a sponsor of terror. It is equally repressive. But we need to be trying to export, as it were, values and restraint and multilateralism into that Gulf region, not, as we in the United Kingdom are doing currently, arming the Saudis so they can bomb Yemen, bomb hospitals, bomb people into starvation.

So Corbyn represents a real change. And if any of your viewers feel like it, have British friends, please encourage them to have no hesitation in changing this government, because we want to do what you need to do. We need to get rid of the kind of dinosaurs of kind of the 20th century view of how one intervenes in the Middle East and, of course, the 20th century view of Islamophobia, which I'm afraid Trump's—Trump's comment in that tweet about Sadiq Khan speak volumes subtextually about the Islamophobic nature of Trump's administration.

AMY GOODMAN: May said, in her speech about cracking down, that the internet has provided a safe haven for terrorists and that big companies that provide internet-based services have been complicit. What do you see coming out of this, Paul?

PAUL MASON: I think, before we say anything else, we have to say that the analysis is correct. You know, we've got big companies claiming that they don't have any interest in the content that they create. If a newspaper carried an advertisement for al-Qaeda or ISIS, that newspaper should be shut down. So, now, the internet, it is said, is ungovernable. That is also not true. It is governable in America, where most of those internet companies are based. I don't want to see the balkanization of the internet. I don't want to see increased surveillance. I don't want to see censorship. And, of course, in America, unlike here, you have your First Amendment rights. But what I think is likely, and May's comments—I think May will be one of the last people to do this. People I've been speaking to in the past couple of weeks are more and more confident that sooner or later in the United States those companies will be faced with a class-action lawsuit which accuses them of facilitating the distribution of terrorist propaganda. Now, they need to wake up and think about how to regulate what is done there more clearly.

And I would also say, in the United States, look, your First Amendment rights are very, very important, precious to you. So is your right to carry arms. Here in the United Kingdom, the only reason we're not talking about maybe tens or hundreds dead is because those three guys could not put their finger on a 9mm pistol, let alone an assault rifle. They had to use knives, because they can't get guns. And just bear that lesson in mind, when we think about what both—you know, the constitutional freedoms we all hold dear come at a price.

And how this relates to the internet, of course, is that if—I don't want to see a big crackdown on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but we have to work out how we stop people being radicalized online. See, the community those guys came from, it is known, is a place in east London about two or three miles from here called Barking. And that community knew them. That community reported them to the police. But the other community they must have been part of was an online network where people are being recruited. Now, I think we do, as a civil society, need to ask ourselves what powers we give to the state in order to find those networks. I don't think breaking encryption or banning encryption works, but we need targeted surveillance. And I think, at that level, we do need web companies to start collaborating and cooperating with democratic states, because, otherwise, you just—you create a safe space online where these guys are getting radicalized and getting their orders.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Mason, we want to thank you very much for being with us. Of course, we'll continue to cover this issue and many others.

PAUL MASON: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Mason, columnist for The Guardian, filmmaker, based in London. His most recent book, Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. When we come back, President Trump has raised the Muslim ban as a response to what happened in London, so we'll discuss it. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "Liar Liar" by Captain SKA. The song is a protest against British Prime Minister Theresa May. It rose to number four on the U.K. Singles Chart last week, even as the BBC refused to broadcast the song and made it unavailable for streaming on the BBC website. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.