LATE fall was a frantic period for New York Times reporters covering the country’s secretive national security apparatus. Working sources at the F.B.I., the C.I.A., Capitol Hill and various intelligence agencies, the team chased several bizarre but provocative leads that, if true, could upend the presidential race. The most serious question raised by the material was this: Did a covert connection exist between Donald Trump and Russian officials trying to influence an American election?
One vein of reporting centered on a possible channel of communication between a Trump organization computer server and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin. Another source was offering The Times salacious material describing an odd cross-continental dance between Trump and Moscow. The most damning claim was that Trump was aware of Russia’s efforts to hack Democratic computers, an allegation with implications of treason. Reporters Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers led the effort, aided by others.
Conversations over what to publish were prolonged and lively, involving Washington and New York, and often including the executive editor, Dean Baquet. If the allegations were true, it was a huge story. If false, they could damage The Times’s reputation. With doubts about the material and with the F.B.I. discouraging publication, editors decided to hold their fire.
But was that the right decision? Was there a way to write about some of these allegations using sound journalistic principles but still surfacing the investigation and important leads? Eventually, The Times did just that, but only after other news outlets had gone first.
I have spoken privately with several journalists involved in the reporting last fall, and I believe a strong case can be made that The Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had.
I appreciate the majority view that there wasn’t enough proof of a link between Trump and the Kremlin to write a hard-hitting story. But The Times knew several critical facts: the F.B.I. had a sophisticated investigation underway on Trump’s organization, possibly including FISA warrants. (Some news outlets now report that the F.B.I. did indeed have such warrants, an indication of probable cause.) Investigators had identified a mysterious communication channel, partly through a lead from anti-Trump operatives
At one point, the F.B.I. was so serious about its investigation into the server that it asked The Times to delay publication. Meanwhile, reporters had met with a former British intelligence officer who was building the dossier. While his findings were difficult to confirm, Times reporting bore out that he was respected in his craft. And of his material that was checkable, no significant red flags emerged. What’s more, said one journalist frustrated with the process, a covert link seemed like a plausible explanation for the strange bromance between Trump and Putin.
There were disagreements about whether to hold back. There was even an actual draft of a story. But it never saw daylight. The deciding vote was Baquet’s, who was adamant, then and now, that they made the right call.
“We heard about the back-channel communications between the Russians and Trump,” he said. “We reported it, and found no evidence that it was true. We wrote everything we knew — and we wrote a lot. Anybody that thinks we sat on stuff is outrageous. It’s just false.”
I don’t believe anyone suppressed information for ignoble reasons, and indeed The Times produced strong work on former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. But the idea that you only publish once every piece of information is in and fully vetted is a false construct.
If you know the F.B.I. is investigating, say, a presidential candidate, using significant resources and with explosive consequences, that should be enough to write. Not a “gotcha” story that asserts unsubstantiated facts. But a piece that describes the nature of the investigations, the unexplained but damning leads, with emphasis on what is known and what isn’t.
Running every detail of the dossier, as BuzzFeed did, would have been irresponsible. Writing about a significant investigation would not. Weeks after The Times had the goods, Franklin Foer of Slate and David Corn of Mother Jones each took a turn at such pre-election articles. Their stories may not have been precisely what The Times would have done, but they offered a model.
If The Times didn’t write about ongoing investigations, it wouldn’t have produced the excellent scoop on Trump associates and Russia that broke Thursday night. Nor would it have so relentlessly documented the F.B.I.’s pursuit of Hillary Clinton’s emails until all facts were resolved. That investigation was fair game, and so was Trump’s.
A wave of readers over the past week have challenged The Times’s decision to sit on its reporting about the dossier. Among them was Michael Russo of Brooklyn, who had this to say:
I can appreciate that journalistic diligence requires your paper to describe these memos as “unsubstantiated.” But the “unsubstantiated” allegations described in this article have been circulating for months. While your editors made a value judgment about the veracity of these claims, American intelligence agencies apparently took the memos seriously enough to open their own investigations. How is this not newsworthy in its own right?
There is an unsettling theme that runs through The Times’s publishing decisions. In each instance, it was the actions of government officials that triggered newsroom decisions — not additional reporting or insight that journalists gained. On the server, once the F.B.I. signaled it had grown wary of its importance — without giving conclusive evidence as to why — the paper backed off. Weeks later, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, publicly admonished the F.B.I. for being secretive about its probe of Trump. That gave The Times cover to write what it knew about the bureau’s investigation into the bank server.
It was the same pattern on the dossier. Only after learning from CNN that Trump and President Obama had been briefed on the document did The Times publish what it had known for months. Its confidence in the material had not changed, nor did its editors know whether the top level briefing meant the government believed the information was true. But the briefing became justifiable cause to publish.
In this cat-and-mouse atmosphere between a manipulative government and a reluctant press, the government won.
After-action insights are easier than in-the-moment decisions. Back then, the media still thought Trump was a weak challenger to Clinton, a mind-set that might have made taking the risk of publishing explosive allegations all the more fraught.
But it’s hard not to wonder what impact such information might have had on voters still evaluating the candidates, an issue I chided The Times for not pursuing enough in an earlier column. Would more sources have come forward? Would we already know the essential facts?
If the new president was in fact colluding with a foreign adversary, journalists and investigators should feel enormous pressure to conclusively establish that fact. If it is not true, both Trump and the country deserve to have this issue put to rest.
That is by the ombudsman Liz Spayd and it's the best one she's done so far. But it doesn't address why they went so hard on the Comey bombshell and that's a big part of this. It's as impossible to believe that he NY Times didn't know what they were doing as it is to believe Comey didn't.
The bottom line is this: both the FBI and the New York Times knew that there were multiple serious criminal investigations into Donald Trump's Russian connections before the election. And yet they decided that the only investigation they could discuss and report on was Hillary Clinton's server and boring hacked campaign emails neither of which added up to anything but gave the impression of illegal and unethical behavior.
These were devastating decisions. This column is a step in the right direction but there is still no real reckoning. But the worm is turning.
In the last two months I’ve gotten hundreds of emails from Trump supporters that consist of little more than, “You lost, so why don’t you just shut up?” Now that Donald Trump is officially our 45th president, I have a response, a message from at least this liberal to my conservative friends.
At times like this it’s common to speak of shared purpose and national unity. If that’s what you’re looking for, there are plenty of other voices you can listen to.
It would be wonderful if national unity were possible, but it isn’t. Perhaps Donald Trump will surprise us all and turn out to be a temperate, careful, and wise president. If that should happen, I’ll join with conservatives to give him the praise he deserves. But he hasn’t earned it yet, not by a mile.
Please, don’t tell us liberals that when we criticize Trump we’re doing terrible damage to the convivial spirit that would otherwise prevail were we not so rude. We’ve heard that baloney before, and it’s pretty rich coming from people who spent the last eight years saying that Barack Obama was a foreign socialist tyrant carrying out a secret plan to destroy America.
So spare us your hypocritical talk of unity, because your champion sure doesn’t believe it. We’ve seen it clearly since the election: once he goes off his teleprompter, we get not even the pretense of unity from Donald Trump. Quite the contrary; he communicates again and again that he has nothing but contempt for those who don’t pay him proper tribute. After a campaign that was built on hatred and resentment from its very first moment, he couldn’t bring himself to reach out to the majority of Americans who didn’t vote for him, mounting a “thank you tour” only of states he won (think what you would have said if Hillary Clinton had been the victor and done that) and lashing out on Twitter like a cranky toddler at anyone who criticized him.
Being elected to the presidency wasn’t enough to grant him an iota of generosity or magnanimity. He may be the most powerful person on earth, but he’s still a tiny, petty, insecure, vengeful man whose only measure of any human being’s worth is whether they’ve praised him recently.
It will be a long time before the contrast in the character of these two presidents ceases to bring us pain. We won’t forget how Trump treated Barack Obama, a man who despite every rancid personal attack you threw at him conducted himself in office with an uncommon level of grace and class. And now he has handed the keys to the White House to a man who launched his political career with a despicable campaign to question to question Obama’s birthplace, and who in every way is his opposite: impulsive where Obama is thoughtful, ignorant where Obama is informed, disrespectful where Obama is polite, vindictive where Obama is generous, a walking collection of character flaws where Obama is a role model.
Do you look at Trump and say to your kids, “That’s who you should emulate”? Do you tell them to be so so insecure and narcissistic? Do you tell them to lie dozens of times every day the way he does? Because I and millions of others can and do tell our children to be like our outgoing president. Barack Obama made mistakes and fell short, as every president does. But never for a moment did I feel ashamed to have voted for him. Did you ever feel ashamed to be a Trump supporter? When you watched him say that an American judge couldn’t treat him fairly because “He’s a Mexican,” when you watched him attack a Gold Star family, when you read the details of how he conned people out of their life savings with Trump University, when you listened to him brag about how he could sexually assault women with impunity because he’s famous — what did you feel? if none of those made you even a little bit ashamed that he was your candidate, then there’s something hollow where your soul should be.
Yes, that’s all in the past now and the campaign is over. But no, we’re not just going to “move on” and forget about the fact that a hostile foreign power may have actively aided this president’s election. We want a full investigation so we can understand what happened and why — and whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. And we aren’t going to forget that FBI director Jim Comey, knowing that there was an intensive investigation underway into Russian efforts on Trump’s behalf, chose to publicly announce, 11 days before the election, that Hillary Clinton’s emails were being investigated, most likely throwing the election to Trump. We can’t change that now, but we aren’t going to forget it, and no one else should either.
You want to call us sore losers? Fine. But has there ever been a sore winner like Donald Trump? He can’t even tolerate being made fun of by Saturday Night Live.
You don’t like it when we get angry? Deal with it. We’re angry now, and we’ll stay angry. We’ll be angry when this president and this Congress try to take health coverage from tens of millions and health security from hundreds of millions. We’ll be angry when they try to cut off women’s access to health care, and cut taxes for the wealthy, and slash the safety net. We’ll be angry when they gut environmental regulations, and promote discrimination, and attack voting rights, and remove restraints on Wall Street misbehavior.
I know many liberals who believe this is the end of America as we know it, that Trump is such an authoritarian and so imbalanced that the damage he will inflict on our nation and our world will be impossible to undo. People speak of an unprecedented era of corruption, of a withering attack on all the institutions of democracy, even of a nuclear war brought on by Trump’s unique combination of ignorance and impulsiveness.
I try not to be quite so pessimistic, to keep my fear in check. But only time will tell. And if these next years turn out the way we fear, understand this: We will never allow you to forget what you have countenanced and joined with. The stain of 2016 and everything that is about to follow is on you. You fell behind this man and assented to everything he is. Your hands will never be clean.
And we will fight. We may not win most of the time — with control of the White House and Congress, there is a great deal Republicans will be able to do no matter how much the Democrats or the public object. But we will fight, precisely because we love our country and care about its future. We liberals know well that you like to think that you alone are the “real” Americans and you alone have the country’s true interests at heart. But we stopped submitting to that calumny some time ago.
So I say to my conservative friends: You want liberals to pipe down and get behind our new president? Too damn bad.
I wish all those looney left wingers like George Will would just face up to the fact that they have lost:
Twenty minutes into his presidency, Donald Trump, who is always claiming to have made, or to be about to make, astonishing history, had done so. Living down to expectations, he had delivered the most dreadful inaugural address in history.
Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s White House counselor, had promised that the speech would be “elegant.” This is not the adjective that came to mind as he described “American carnage.” That was a phrase the likes of which has never hitherto been spoken at an inauguration.
Oblivious to the moment and the setting, the always remarkable Trump proved that something dystopian can be strangely exhilarating: In what should have been a civic liturgy serving national unity and confidence, he vindicated his severest critics by serving up reheated campaign rhetoric about “rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape” and an education system producing students “deprived of all knowledge.” Yes, all.
But cheer up, because the carnage will vanish if we “follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.” “Simple” is the right word.
Because in 1981 the inauguration ceremony for a cheerful man from the American West was moved from the Capitol’s East Portico to its West Front, Trump stood facing west, down the Mall with its stately monuments celebrating some of those who made America great — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. Looking out toward where the fields of the republic roll on, Trump, a Gatsby-for-our-time, said: “What truly matters is not which party controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people.” Well.
“A dependence on the people,” James Madison wrote, “is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” He meant the checks and balances of our constitutional architecture. They are necessary because, as Madison anticipated and as the nation was reminded on Friday, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”
There are supposed to be other enlightened statesmen in charge of the other branches.
Those of you in the Eastern Time Zone not already at the Women's March on Washington are probably already heading to your local sister marches. Those further west still have a bit more time to make your local events.
For those of us on the front lines in North Carolina, another important event is just over the time horizon. Three weeks from today on Saturday February 11, the Forward Together Movement gathers in Raleigh, NC at 8:30 a.m. for the 11th annual HKonJ rally (Historic Thousands on Jones Street) led by the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II.
The last time I attended HKonJ in 2014, the rally was tens of thousands and, save for The Nation's Ari Berman, received little national press. Gov. Pat McCrory's legislature had passed the most restrictive new voting law in the country the summer before. Since then, McCrory got turned out of office in a Republican sweep year, largely because of the persistent Moral Monday protests led by Barber and the NC NAACP. In the Trump era, this year's rally should be even larger. And after the international spectacle now former governor McCrory and the Republican-dominated legislature staged in December, the national press has its eyes on North Carolina. Barring a tasty, 3 a.m. tweet by Trump I the night before, there will be press.
Part of what makes Moral Mondays successful is that it is a nonpartisan, "fusion politics" movement, a populist coalition in which a host of issues move "Forward Together," as the movement's name suggests, and no one's pet issue takes precedence. Don't expect Moral Mondays to go away because Pat McCrory did. Newer and bluer oranger Meanies have been sighted in the vicinity of the nation's capitol. Barber's is a successful template for taking them on.
Barber has succeeded in something at which many in the progressive movement regularly fail: getting progressive issue advocacy groups to work collaboratively rather than competitively. For Forward Together, an attack on one coalition member is an attack on all, and all respond. Sort of a nonviolent NATO. Ordinarily, advocacy groups worry about defending their turf and their donors. In campaign work, organizers worry about having another campaign "poach" their volunteers. The donor/volunteer pie is fixed in size, supposedly, and Group A worries that gains by Group B will come at A's expense. It's been a zero-sum world. Except it's not. And it needn't be. Not now. People (mostly women) are still leaving telephone messages, almost desperate to do something/anything to push back against the Orange Meanie. They'll be out in force this morning. Donald Trump just "made the pie higher," to borrow from Bush II, but in a different sense. The volunteer pie is growing, not fixed.
A few days ago, I wrote about Trump's threat to evict the press from the White House and how that might actually lead to better reporting. But the competitive nature of news gathering works against that in the same way that competing rather than cooperating for scarce resources weakens issue advocacy groups. The Competitive Enterprise Institute may believe competition "answereth all things," as prosperity gospel con men say about money, but not here. Not now. Ahead of press conferences (assuming Trump has any more), reporters ought to meet to assemble a list of key questions the public wants answered, and when Trump blows off one reporter or evades answering, the next reporter called should ask the same question and so forth until he answers. Only then would they move on to the next question. But that would take, you know, cooperation.
In case you missed the speech, this will give you the basic gist:
During his speech in Washington D.C., now President Donald Trump quoted an unusual villain. Prior to capping the speech with his signature, "And, yes, we will make America great again!" the President quoted a line from Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy finale: The Dark Knight Rises.
As you can see in the video below, President Trump promised to give America back to the people, saying "We're giving it back to you, the people."
In The Dark Knight Rises, Bane freed prisoners in Gotham City and stood atop a car to address the citizens, saying, "And we give it back to you, the people."
The uncanny parallel can be seen in the video below.
Today is Inauguration Day. And Donald J. Trump is going to be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. I never dreamed — or hallucinated — that I would type those words, but here we are. We are about to go on a wild ride unlike anything we’ve ever experienced before.
President Trump is already flouting virtually every previous norm, rule and custom against corruption and nepotism. His understanding of and relationship to the rest of the world is shallow and ill-considered. We will find out whether our institutions are strong enough to withstand the American democratic system making such a terrible mistake. The stakes could not be higher.
One of the great misconceptions about Donald Trump throughout the presidential campaign was the mistaken idea that because he said kind words about Vladimir Putin and insisted he had been against the Iraq invasion that he was an old-school isolationist. For some reason these people ignored the fact that Trump’s stated philosophy of life is very consistent and very explicit:
Get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades. I really mean it. I really mean it. You’ve got to hit people hard and it’s not so much for that person; it’s that other people watch.
He believes in demonstrating power against people who “disrespect” him personally and who, in his mind, disrespect the United States. Over many years he has said that he believes the rest of the world is laughing at us and he is determined to make them stop.
On Thursday, The Huffington Post reported that Trump had very much wanted to stage a major military parade for his inauguration, something that has always been associated with counties like North Korea, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Soviet Union. The brass apparently told him that tanks and missile launchers would destroy the streets because they’re too heavy. So he had to settle for a full military flyover, which hasn’t been done since Harry Truman was inaugurated. He told The Washington Post yesterday that he planned to hold them in the future, however:
We’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military. That military may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military.
He is rather childlike in many respects, so watching things that go boom undoubtedly excites him. But other countries have done this to prove their military superiority and that’s surely what Trump thinks is necessary as well. He truly does not understand that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States has the mightiest military on Earth. Indeed, a decision by the U.S. that it needs to “show” this would probably be seen as a sign of insecurity and weakness, if it weren’t for the fact that everyone can see that the country is now being led by the American version of Kim Jong-un.
With all the hubbub around the inauguration, a lot of things that would normally call for scrutiny and discussion are falling through the cracks. A story in The New York Times about newly released documents from the George W. Bush administration’s torture program is one of them; that’s unfortunate. After all, our new president isn’t just a man who believes waterboarding is a regrettable necessity. He’s a big fan as he has said:
They asked me, What do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump? I said I love it. I love it, I think it’s great. And I said the only thing is, we should make it much tougher than waterboarding, and if you don’t think it works folks, you’re wrong.
There is no evidence that “it works.” In fact, all the scholarship says the opposite. Torture is counterproductive. Trump was told this by his incoming secretary of defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, and he was surprised to hear it. But he didn’t change his mind.
Trump has, of course, promised from the very beginning that he planned to bring back torture. He has said he wants to do “much worse” than waterboarding, even implying at one point that he believes the U.S. should “chop off heads” in order to fight fire with fire.
As one might expect, it’s not just a matter of trying to obtain information. There’s no need for “ticking bombs” to justify using it. Trump has said he wants to use torture as punishment:
It works. And if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.
The outgoing administration of Barack Obama had insisted on keeping the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the use of torture during the Bush years under wraps. Even the release of the summary was fraught with controversy. The reasons for refusal are unclear but it’s reasonable to assume Obama officials believed it would implicate certain government employees and officials in war crimes, and would also serve as useful propaganda for ISIS.
Civil libertarians generally do not find this rationale to be acceptable. The lack of punishment and accountability for the torture program removed the taboo against it. Now we have a new president who unapologetically promises to revive it and revitalize it with tactics that are even more cruel and inhumane.
Yesterday, according to The New York Times, a federal judge ordered the report to be preserved and placed in the hands of the judiciary by Feb. 10 for safekeeping. There is apparently some suspicion that this report may be destroyed in the same way those videotapes of CIA torture sessions were destroyed. If it happens now, the perpetrator will be in contempt of court.
Most people involved in this issue are fearful that Trump will destroy the report anyway but I have my doubts. Indeed, I think there’s a chance he’ll release it publicly. This would not be because he believes in transparency or thinks the torturers and officials who ordered the practice should be punished. I expect he would want them celebrated by their countrymen as heroes.
After all, Trump wants to parade tanks and missiles through the streets of our cities. He wants to demonstrate American military prowess to prove to the world that he’s the toughest leader of the richest, most powerful nation on Earth. But nothing says “tough guy” like openly celebrating torture. We should be careful what we wish for. digby 1/20/2017 01:00:00 PM
The reviews are in
There is a gap between those who think that Trump is fit for the presidency, in mind and character, and those who don't. That gap is damn near unbridgeable.
To my ears, Trump's address was nasty and borderline un-American --- for all it's talk of patriotism and "America First."
"Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans and people of the world, thank you.
We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and restore its promise for all of our people.
Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come. We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.
Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.
And we are grateful to President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition.
They have been magnificent.
Today's ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.
For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have bore the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.
It belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day.
This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now. You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families and good jobs for themselves.
These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public.
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists.
Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation.
An education system flush with cash but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge.
And the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
We are one nation, and their pain is our pain.
Their dreams are our dreams, and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home and one glorious destiny.
The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.
For many decades we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.
We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own. And we've spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.
One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind.
The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. But that is the past, and now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.
From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our product, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.
Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never ever let you down.
America will start winning again, winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs.
We will bring back our borders.
We will bring back our wealth, and we will bring back our dreams.
We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off of welfare and back to work, rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.
We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.
We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.
We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example.
We will shine for everyone to follow.
We will re-enforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.
The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. There should be no fear. We are protected and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement. And most importantly, we will be protected by God.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.
Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.
We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms and we all salute the same great American flag.
And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty creator.
So to all Americans in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America proud again, we will make America safe again.
And, yes, together we will make America great again.
I feel as though I’ve seen this movie before. This reminds me of the Nixon years, when the “silent majority” felt itself assailed by the counterculture of hippies, minorities and uppity women. This time, though, the Trump loyalists are a clear minority; he lost the popular vote, and his approval rating is shockingly low for a new president. And the counterculture is now the mainstream: Some of those marching against Trump this weekend haven’t taken to the streets since the days of Vietnam.
Republicans celebrate their victory today, such as it is. Democrats lost the White House in 2016, but so did they. Trump defeated the entire GOP and now has it prostrating itself before him. Robinson elaborates:
Trump has no fixed ideology. Once a Democrat, he commandeered the Republican Party the way a bank robber might hijack the nearest car to make his getaway. The GOP is Trump’s vehicle, not his cause, and there is a chance that some of his policies — perhaps even in health care — will give more heartburn to conservatives than to progressives.
To be determined, of course. "Admit it, you have no idea what a Trump administration will actually be like," Robinson writes. "[N]one of us knows what is going to happen," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) tells Politico.
The online teaser for Paul Krugman's New York Times column this morning reads, "The new president will be corrupt and crazy, but he’ll also be incompetent." Krugman writes about Trump's team:
So the typical Trump nominee, in everything from economics to diplomacy to national security, is ethically challenged, ignorant about the area of policy he or she is supposed to manage and deeply incurious. Some, like Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s choice as national security adviser, are even as addicted as their boss to internet conspiracy theories. This isn’t a team that will compensate for the commander in chief’s weaknesses; on the contrary, it’s a team that will amplify them.
Not to worry, because strong, eh? Trump wanted missile launchers and tanks coming down Pennsylvania Avenue for his inaugural parade so he could show the world how great his military is:
During the preparation for Friday’s transfer-of-power, a member of Trump’s transition team floated the idea of including tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade, a source involved in inaugural planning told The Huffington Post. “They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade,” the source said, referring to massive military parades in Moscow and Pyongyang, typically seen as an aggressive display of muscle-flexing.
Planners shot down that idea as not structurally sound:
“I could absolutely see structural support being a reason [not to use tanks],” a Department of Defense official said. “D.C. is built on a swamp to begin with.”
But of course, as a master builder, Trump knew that. He'll get military flyovers instead.
And the vampire squid is back in business in Washington (as if it ever left). As Steve Benen wrote, "[I]t’s almost hard to believe how many Goldman Sachs veterans he’s adding to his administration’s team." Benen notes ironically, "About a year ago, Edward Snowden characterized the 2016 presidential election as 'a choice between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs.' Oops."
In a display of a different kind of strength, many of my friends are headed to Washington today, not for the inauguration but for the Women's March on Washington tomorrow. A little Todd to send them off. Todd works whenever I need my spirits lifted:
When Bush and Cheney seized office under dubious circumstances, the Villagers all crowed that the "grown-ups" were back in charge.
Well, the grown-ups screwed the pooch. Now the owners are taking personal control:
“My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee. I have decided to stop taking offense,” she wrote, “at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment." --- Betsy DeVos
It is not a new idea. The first Chief Justice of the United States John Jay said it from the beginning:
Those who own the country ought to govern it.
I sure hope all those angry Real Americans knew what they were doing.
Yes, she's dumb, but she swims in the same fever swamp as millions of other Trump voters:
Speaking with “Trending Today USA” host Rusty Humphries yesterday, former Republican congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann declared that Hillary Clinton should be in jail and said she “would not be surprised” if President Obama issues a “blank pardon” for Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton before leaving office on Friday.
Bachmann objected to Obama’s commutation of the sentence of Chelsea Manning, whom she referred to as Bradley Manning, and claimed that Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state “most likely” caused “America’s most vital secrets” to be “intercepted” and “released to the world.”
“We had the worst intelligence failures ever in the history of the United States under Barack Obama,” she said, “by Bradley Manning, by Edward Snowden and by none other than our secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who because of her selfishness in having an unsecured server set up in her home had America’s most vital secrets intercepted, most likely, by our enemies and released to the world. Barack Obama should be ashamed, Bradley Manning should be in jail and Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, should be there with him.”
“I would look for a pardon coming for Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation before noon on Friday,” she said, noting that people not charged with crimes can be “pre-pardoned.”
“I would not be surprised if we don’t see Barack Obama issue a blank pardon for anything Bill, Hillary, Chelsea or the Clinton Foundation has done,” she said.
Just so you know going in --- all the emerging information about Trump's corruption is going to be met with the inane response that Crooked Hillary was worse, with veiled threats to throw her in jail or worse.
I'm guessing that if you like the rancid smell of self-tanner and AquaNet you'll love the smell of Trump-scented candles:
There are Donald Trump-shaped cookie cutters, “Drain the swamp” sweatshirts and candles meant to smell like the new president – a combination of “all of the classiest smells,” according to the product’s description. Keep searching among the Trump-inspired flasks, paperweights and peppermints and you’ll find coffee mugs that say “Build that wall” and a penny stamped with “Trump” selling for $2.75.
Online shops, street vendors and high-end boutiques around town said they spent weeks preparing for Friday’s inauguration with equal parts sincerity and snark in hopes of cashing in on fans and foes of the next president.
At Chocolate Moose, a novelty gift shop a half-mile from the White House, shelves were lined with Trump whoopee cushions and chocolate miniatures of the Capitol. The Trump mask, a Halloween favorite, was back in stock.
“Up to now, absolutely, it’s been all about the gag stuff,” said Michele Cosby, the store’s owner.
The best-selling item? Toilet paper emblazoned with Trump’s face. “We sold cases upon cases of it,” Cosby said. “And at $12 a roll, it wasn’t cheap.” (But, she added, she stopped selling the popular item once Trump became president-elect: “We didn’t want to cross the line.”)
At the Great Republic, which had inauguration pop-up shops at the St. Regis and Mandarin Oriental hotels in Washington, revelers could pick up pens made of wood from the White House and hand-painted with portraits of Trump for $1,950 each.
Over in Georgetown, local jeweler Ann Hand had sold nearly 1,000 inaugural pins bearing Trump’s name and a slew of pavé stones. She was also selling inaugural cuff links, charm bracelets and a limited number of mother-of-pearl pins with Swarovski crystals for $250.
“It’s been a very tough inaugural to buy for,” said Warlick, who began selling inauguration-related items in 1981. “Usually we only do pro-presidential items, but this time we also have ‘resistance products’ because people are so divided.”...
Meanwhile, the official inauguration shop funded by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, was selling sweatshirts bearing the inaugural seal ($55), Trump koozies ($20 for six) and red cap ornaments that say “Make America Great Again,” complete with 24-karat gold accents ($99).
But on Washington streets, vendors said they just hadn’t seen as much demand this year for president-related mugs, T-shirts, shot glasses and key chains as they as they did ahead of previous inaugurations. In a town where 91 percent of residents voted for Clinton, they said it has been difficult to sell Trump-related merchandise.
“We’re all dealing with the same dilemma: What quantity of shirts do we get?” said a vendor with a booth at Connecticut Avenue and K Street NW who declined to give his name. “. . . We cannot afford to get stuck with all this Trump stuff. People in Washington resent that fact that we even carry these shirts.”
Warlick said he expects to sell inauguration-related items through May. For now, a line of Michelle Obama merchandise continues to outsell both his Trump and Clinton inaugural lines.
“Sales have been nowhere near what they were with Clinton and Obama,” Warlick said, adding that he expects to sell about one-third the Trump merchandise as he did for Obama back in 2009. “Obama’s first inaugural was – to use Trump’s own words – yuge.”
There was a time when Trump would have been excited about how much money he was going to make selling his Trump branded merch. Now he's selling the President of the United States brand which is worth so much more...
Prince claimed to have sources within the Weiner investigation who were illegally leaking information to him. In Prince’s case, the sources were within NYPD, and the information he relayed from them to Breitbart News on November 4th—when it was not yet known that Comey, the next day, would reveal the “new” Clinton emails to be duplicates—turned out to be almost entirely false. The full extent of Prince’s lies on November 4th, all of which were Trump campaign disinformation delivered by an adviser and major donor to the campaign, are too numerous and spectacular to list here. Two brief quotes from Breitbart’s interview with Prince should suffice:
Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week....”[NYPD] found a lot of other really damning criminal information [on Weiner’s computer], including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than twenty times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said. “The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress, was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained. “I believe—I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at One Police Plaza in New York—the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department.”
“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t. There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to Special Access Programs....The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; five different offices are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well....From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down....This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton—look, you don’t have to make any judgments. Just release the emails. Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”
All of this is bullshit, needless to say.
People are saying that fear of this is what made Comey make his big announcement. That makes no sense. His big announcement is what hurled this otherwise inane fever swamp story into the stratosphere. And he wasn't born yesterday. He certainly knew what the effect would be.
But this is another interesting little factoid that one would hope the FBI Inspector general would look into in his investigation.
A former senior U.S. official who has advised the Trump transition told The Intercept that Prince has been advising the team on matters related to intelligence and defense, including weighing in on candidates for the Defense and State departments. The official asked not to be identified because of a transition policy prohibiting discussion of confidential deliberations.
On election night, Prince’s latest wife, Stacy DeLuke, posted pictures from inside Trump’s campaign headquarters as Donald Trump and Mike Pence watched the returns come in, including a close shot of Pence and Trump with their families. “We know some people who worked closely with [Trump] on his campaign,” DeLuke wrote. “Waiting for the numbers to come in last night. It was well worth the wait!!!! #PresidentTrump2016.” Prince’s sister, billionaire Betsy DeVos, is Trump’s nominee for education secretary and Prince (and his mother) gave large sums of money to a Trump Super PAC.
In July, Prince told Trump’s senior adviser and white supremacist Steve Bannon, at the time head of Breitbart News, that the Trump administration should recreate a version of the Phoenix Program, the CIA assassination ring that operated during the Vietnam War, to fight ISIS. Such a program, Prince said, could kill or capture “the funders of Islamic terror and that would even be the wealthy radical Islamist billionaires funding it from the Middle East, and any of the other illicit activities they’re in.”
Prince also said that Trump would be the best force to confront “Islamic fascism.” “As for the world looking to the United States for leadership, unfortunately, I think they’re going to have to wait till January and hope Mr. Trump is elected because, clearly, our generals don’t have a stomach for a fight,” Prince said. “Our president doesn’t have a stomach for a fight and the terrorists, the fascists, are winning.”
The man who promised to run the country like he ran his businesses, including the four bankruptcies, has had the most disastrous transition in history. Most of his people have not been properly vetted or passed FBI background checks. His cabinet appointees are a mess. His staff is inexperienced, corrupt and extreme.
So what's going to happen in the short run? A DC hand explains:
At 12:01 p.m. Friday, Donald Trump’s aides will deploy a team of temporary political appointees into federal agencies to begin laying the groundwork for the president-elect’s agenda while his nominees await Senate confirmation, sources familiar with the plan told POLITICO.
While the transition team has been building the so-called beachhead teams for months, they are taking on outsize importance because few of Trump’s nominees will be confirmed by the time he’s sworn in.
Trump’s transition has instructed members of the beachhead teams to skip the inauguration and be at their desks the moment he is sworn in, sources close to the transition said.
Trump transition spokeswoman Jessica Ditto disputed that beachhead members were given instructions that would require them to miss the inauguration.
"We have approximately 520 individuals on the beachhead teams and they have worked with the agencies to go in any time after 12:01 [p.m.] on Friday — each team has worked out their own timing," she said in an email. "These individuals are honored to help the Trump Administration on Day 1 and are ready to serve our country."
Beachhead members will get badges just like any other federal employee and begin to take over the agencies, said Max Stier, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, which advises incoming administrations on transitions. The goal is to ensure a smooth transfer of power not just at the White House, but at crucial federal agencies as well.
“The beachhead team is a newish structure, built by the [Mitt] Romney transition,” Stier said. “The basic concept is a recognition that incoming administrations do not have the full confirmed team in place. How do you put people in to keep the agencies running?”
Reed Cordish, whom Trump recently tapped as his assistant for intragovernmental and technology initiatives, organized the agency beachhead teams — whose size varies agency to agency, anywhere from a few people to a dozen. However, the size of these teams has grown exponentially in the past two weeks, with Republicans around town emailing each other congratulatory notes about making it into these coveted slots.
Landing on a beachhead team may translate into a job at that agency, at least for the first four months or so of the new administration until a secretary can get confirmed and officially put together his or her team. “It means that you’re almost guaranteed a job if you want one in that department,” said a GOP strategist close to the transition.
Trump’s team has long worried that career federal workers and President Barack Obama’s political appointees will seek to undermine the president-elect’s agenda. The transition sees the beachhead teams, named after the line of defense that the military constructs as it lands in enemy territory, as a check on existing agency officials.
The transition team has also instructed the teams to begin collecting information and laying organizational groundwork so that Trump’s secretaries and undersecretaries can hit the ground running once they’re confirmed.
In addition, Trump’s team has identified a few dozen Obama political appointees who have been asked to stay on after Friday to help with the transition, sources said.
For example, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday that Trump’s team said U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals can stay past Friday.
As is customary when a new president enters the White House, all political appointees must submit resignation letters that take effect at noon on Inauguration Day. Many Obama administration officials had not heard until recently whether they would be asked to stay.
One Obama administration official said some people who have been asked to stick around are on the fence because they’ve already begun to line up jobs outside the government.
On Wednesday President Obama issued a whole bunch of pardons and commutations, with one granted to Chelsea Manning, the former Army private convicted of leaking classified documents, including evidence of an alleged heinous war crime in Iraq.
It is a controversial commutation, as I’m sure Obama expected, with Republican leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan wringing their hands and expressing their horror that this sends a message that “treachery” will be rewarded. (No word yet on whether they are are equally horrified by the confirmation that five separate agencies are currently investigating whether the campaign of our new president may have colluded with a foreign government.)
Obama addressed these concerns in his final press conference later on Wednesday, pointing out that Manning had already spent years in prison and received a disproportionate sentence compared to others accused of a similar crime. It’s hard to imagine that anyone will look at the Manning case, which includes torture allegations and suicide attempts and see someone who “got away with it.” Commuting her sentence was the decent and humane thing to do.
Ryan is not the only right-winger having a hissy fit over Manning’s commutation. Sean Spicer, Trump’s new press secretary, unctuously proclaimed that the president-elect was “troubled” by it while The Wall Street Journal dove headfirst into the gutter with this odious screed headlined “Politically Correct Clemency: Obama springs gender celebrity Chelsea Manning from prison.”
All these conservatives have apparently forgotten that the most notorious presidential pardons in recent history all came from Republicans pardoning one another. First, of course, was the preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, previously his handpicked vice president. (Ford remains the only president in history never elected to national office by voters.)
You can understand why Republicans would prefer to forget that one — especially now. The second was George H.W. Bush’s Christmas Eve pardons of six high-level members of the Ronald Reagan administration, including the former secretary of state and the former head of the CIA’s clandestine services, over their crimes in the Iran contra affair. Talk about sending a “troubling message.”
Republicans defended those pardons to the hilt as presidential plenary powers and then turned around and launched a major criminal investigation of Bill Clinton’s pardon of financier Marc Rich in 2000. On Wednesday Politico reported that newly released memos about the case reveal that the prosecutor (and current director of the FBI), James Comey, said he was “enthusiastic” about taking it. That isn’t surprising considering that Comey had been the legal counsel for the Republican-led Senate Whitewater committee and had prosecuted Rich in he first place. Comey moved on before the probe was finished but it went on for more than four years, cost millions of dollars and ultimately came to nothing, just as previous Clinton investigations had done.
One only hopes that Comey and the attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions don’t decide to repeat history with any of President Barack Obama’s commutations. There are a lot of them. When the White House announced the latest names, including Manning, it released the following chart:
These are impressive numbers, particularly since there had been a lot of consternation during the first few years of his administration about his reluctance to use the pardon power to right some of the excesses of the criminal justice system. He has obviously made up for lost time and good for him.
Jeffrey Toobin argued for Siegelman’s pardon a couple of years ago in The New Yorker. Basically, he said the case was about a single campaign contribution. Siegelman served as governor from 1999 through 2003. Siegelman had run on a platform that promised to create a state lottery to help pay for education and got a question on the ballot. A health care executive named Richard Scrushy donated $500,000 to fund the lottery campaign, which eventually lost. During the course of that campaign Siegelman had reappointed Scrushy to a state board. Despite the fact that Scrushy had served in that position through three previous administrations, this appointment was portrayed by federal prosecutors as payback for Scrushy’s contribution to the lottery campaign. After much courtroom drama, Siegelman was sentenced to seven years in prison.
This was a political prosecution. You’ll recall that the Justice Department of George W. Bush was rife with politics, culminating in an ugly scandal in which the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, was forced to resign after it was revealed that he had fired prosecutors for refusing to investigate and indict Democratic politicians at the direction of Republican officials. As Toobin explained, there was evidence that President Bush’s consigliere, Karl Rove, had promised Alabama Republicans a DOJ investigation of Siegelman — and by all accounts he delivered one.
Considering the ethical train wreck that is about to overwhelm the White House, it is absurd that Siegelman remains incarcerated. He never should have been imprisoned in the first place and he deserves to be freed. President Obama should pardon him or commute his sentence before Sessions, a member of the same GOP Alabama cabal that put Siegelman away in the first place, takes the reins at the Justice Department.
Among the political right's weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise and ruthless othering. They love their othering. So much so that wingnuts were throwing down the commie card decades after proclaiming St. Ronald of Reagan had slain the Evil Empire and won the Cold War. During one of the recent political conventions (can't find a link), Rachel Maddow was on an MSNBC panel with Pat Buchanan when Buchanan made some "socialist" or what-have-you remark about her. Maddow grinned, eyes wide like it was the highlight of her career. Pat Buchanan is red-baiting me!
President Barack Obama, the Kenyan-atheist-Muslim-socialist-usurper, leaves office tomorrow perhaps the most othered political figure in wingnut lore. Remember when "Obama'sczars" was the othering du jour over which the right wing got hot and bothered? Yeah, neither do they.
Ah, but I was so much older then.
But it all came back yesterday when I "red" about Gov. Rick Perry tackling the plum assignment he thought he'd lucked into in the Donald Trump administration. From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.
In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
Don't laugh. Perry's future boss, the man who tomorrow will have with his short finger on the nuclear trigger, is just as clueless as Governor Goodhair.
Mr. Perry, who once called for the elimination of the Energy Department, will begin the confirmation process Thursday with a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee. If approved by the Senate, he will take over from a secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Before Mr. Moniz, the job belonged to Steven Chu, a physicist who won a Nobel Prize.
Rick Perry: energy czar.
Perry joins a short parade of the unqualified auditioning on Capitol Hill this week for Trump's newest reality show. Betsy DeVos: education czar. Tom Price: Health and Human Services czar. Scott Pruitt: environment czar. Yet there is precious little conservative alarmism about Trump's czars. Isn't that strange?
That's probably just because so few of Trump's czars have cleared vetting yet. Bloomberg:
Remember, this is the administration that, in a break with tradition, is demanding that career diplomats leave their posts promptly when the Lincoln Bible bursts into flame beneath Trump's hand on Friday. There are going to be an awful lot of phones ringing unanswered by Friday afternoon.
Unless, of course, they've all been outsourced to Lubyanka Square.
Post-inauguration Washington will be like that scene in Die Hard with a Vengeance when the candy-stealing kid says, "All the cops are into something. It's Christmas! You could steal City Hall." Almost as if that was the plan.
We're setting sail to the place on the map
From which no one has ever returned
Drawn by the promise of the joker and the fool
By the light of the crosses that burned
Drawn by the promise of the women and the lace
And the gold and the cotton and pearls
It's the place where they keep all the darkness you need
You sail away from the light of the world on this trip, baby
You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You will pay tomorrow
Oh, oh, oh
Save me, save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools, no, no
Oh, save me, save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools, no, no
I want to run and hide right now