Fact Checking Now This Devastating Collage Of Old Trump Clips On Soleimani and Iran

[UPDATE Jan 5, 2020:  Sorry, fixed the title from Here and Now to Now This.  It's an understandable, but unacceptable error.]

Here's the video.  But just as the Right is fed lie after lie by Fox and their collaborators, the Left needs to also be careful it's not taken in as well.  This video destroys Trump, but is it accurate.  First watch the video.

Trump didn't even know who Suleimani is/was 🤦‍♀️pic.twitter.com/8f1ChRLY2M

— Hear Me Roar (@Stop_Trump20) January 4, 2020

So let's check all the clips in this video:

1.  Trump interview with Hugh Hewitt Sept. 2015 on Soleimani

The first interview they excerpt comes from a Hugh Hewitt interview in September 2015.  Hewitt asks Trump what he thinks of Gen. Soleimani head of the Quds.  Trump hears Kurds and it takes awhile before that is cleared up.  Trump says he doesn't have to worry about Gotcha questions because all these guys will be gone before he becomes president.

The original Youtube of this conversation is here.  It's 6:11 minutes long.  It's really just audio with a cover picture that includes Hewitt and Trump..  Now Hear This has added new photos to make the video livelier, but the conversation is the same, though shortened considerably.

The Washington Examiner, a conservative paper, confirms this 2016 Trump interview with Hugh Hewitt about Soleimani


2.  Trump March 16, 2016 interview "I'm speaking with myself  . . ."

The second interview is a from a Morning Joe show on MSNBC on March 16, 2016.   They're talking about his primary victory in Florida the day before and he's asked who he consults with.

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things..."  

That's cut off rather abruptly.

I found the original MSNBC interview at Factbase.  The quote is from 3:51-4:03. They have transcript of the whole interview with the matching clips next to each section.  You can check it here.  Here's the excerpt which includes the rest of his response.

"I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things. In fact, in my book in 2000, I talked about Osama bin Laden and I do remember somebody putting the book in front of Joe and Joe saying no way he talked about it, no way he wrote about Osama bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down. And they said no, he really did. And I remember Joe looking at it and saying, I don't believe it"

[AP has a fact check on his claim that he warned about bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down.  bin Laden is mentioned briefly in the book, but more mocking Clinton for saying he's an important target, and not right before 9/11.]


3.  Rep. Max Rose Interview

Next comes a January 3, 2020 interview New York Democratic Rep. Max Rose.  He asks two questions about the decision to assassinate Soleimani:

1. What was the intelligence undergirding this decision?  How significant was it?  How imminent was it?  
2. What is the plan for tomorrow because an Iranian response is inevitable?

I can't find this interview.  I found a link to CNN transcripts for what seemed to be this interview,  but  my browser couldn't open the page.  Here's the link.  Maybe it will be up later.  Another link to the CNN transcripts says this:

"Note: This page is continually updated as new transcripts become available. If you cannot find a specific segment, check back later."

But here's what Rep. Max Rose posted on his Congressional page that's pretty close.

“No one should mourn the loss of Qasem Soleimani who was responsible for hundreds of Americans deaths and injuries to thousands more—some of whom I know and served with. We are now faced with incredibly serious questions regarding the intelligence that led to this strike and what the Administration’s plan is for what comes next. Let me be clear: no President, regardless of party, has the authority to go to war with Iran without Congressional authorization.”

There's also an MSNBC January 3, 2020 interview with Rose.  which doesn't include the quotes from the video.



4.  Sen. Chris Van Hollen's brief comment

Then there's a cut to Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Democrat from Maryland on January 2, 2020 on Wolf Blitzer

That interview (a day earlier than Rose's) is in the CNN transcripts.  Here are the words that were in the Now Hear This clip:

"Obviously, we need to do what's necessary to protect the lives of Americans. But, unfortunately, actions this administration has taken for weeks and months now have taken a very difficult situation, and made it much worse."

5.  Trump's prediction that Obama will start a war with Iran

 In this one, Trump predicts Obama will start a war with Iran before the 2012 election because Obama doesn't know how to negotiate.  I can't find the original Youtube, but there are lots and lots of people who have put up the interview in the last few days.   A report on MSNBC on the attack on Soleimani includes part of the 2011 video in which Trump predicts that Obama will start a war with Iran to win reelection.  It starts at about 2:10 in the video. It seems to include all the video, but the first part, where he talks about Obama's inability to negotiate, doesn't have the video included.

There's another weird version of the 2011 Trump prediction here.  It was put up Jan 3, 2020 and includes a computer generated audio description.

Another recently uploaded Youtube of Trump's Obama will start war on Iran prediction as part of a medley of Trump's videos on Iran.  The exact quote from the Now Hear This video is at about 1:25.

There are also other reports of the video at Global News (Canadian) and here's FOX5NY's coverage of it. 

Of course, the purpose of fact checking is to be sure that the media aren't all jumping on the same false claims.  I haven't found the original video, but there are so many outlets - including the Fox channel in New York - and I haven't seen any denials, so I'm going to say, I'm pretty sure this is real.  In fact I think I heard this a long time ago.  But keep a skeptical mind on this last one.

On the whole, I would say that the Now Hear This video is pretty accurate.  The words appear from many sources to have been said by Trump.  The clips don't include everything Trump said - for instance he also talks about the possibility of using the military - but I don't think they take things out of context.   They don't make  him appear to have said things he didn't really say or mean.  But I would also add that in the originals Trump does talk about going to war with Iran as a possibility.  I guess if I watched Fox News, those would be the clips they are showing.


I would also note that I've mentioned before that people often accuse others of what they do, or would do, themselves.  Accusing Obama of starting a war with Iran to win an election probably was something that Trump then would have considered if he were president.  And now, he may have actually done it.  We'll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile I have a friend who left January 2 for a cruise through the Strait of Hormuz.  When I asked him why, (I tend to be understated, I was thinking WTF?!! are you thinking) he said it was the only way he could cruise through the Suez canal.  I don't think he's got internet connections but I did send him an email this morning to let me know the name of the ship - if the cruise hadn't been cancelled - so I'd know he and his wife were ok.  [UPDATE January 6, 2020:  I got an email from him yesterday.  He said the Strait of Hormuz trip is March.  They only were in Cabo yesterday.  I'll let you know if he goes in March and if he does, if the route was altered.]


I'd note finally, that I thought that I could whip this out pretty quickly, but it took a lot more work than I expected.  And I'm really hungry now.

Just So You Know When You Hear Pam Bondi Defending Trump

NPR's Steve Innskeep interviewed Trump spokesperson Pam Bondi this morning.  While he pushed back strongly on some of her assertions, the piece didn't remind listeners of her shady past with Trump.  Like how she dropped out of the lawsuit against Trump University after she got a $25,000 illegal campaign contribution from the supposedly non-profit charitable Trump Foundation.

Bondi interview begins about 1:20 into the audio.

In her role as Attorney General of Florida, she had a decision to make whether Florida should join with many other states on the lawsuit against Trump University.  From her Wikipedia page:

"The Florida Attorney General's office received at least 22 fraud complaints about Trump University. In 2013 a spokesperson for Bondi announced that her office was considering joining a lawsuit initiated by New York's Attorney General against Trump regarding tax fraud.^[20][21] Four days later 'And Justice for All', a political action committee (PAC) established by Bondi to support her re-election campaign, received a $25,000 donation from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, after which Bondi declined to join the lawsuit against Trump University. When controversy over their actions first arose in 2013, both the Bondi PAC and Donald Trump defended the propriety of the nonprofit foundation's political donation.^[22][23]By contrast in March 2016, after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service about the illegal donation, the Trump Foundation stated that the donation had been made in error. It said that the Foundation had intended for the donation to go not to Bondi's PAC but instead to an unrelated Kansas non-profit called Justice for All.^[24][25] However in June 2016, as Bondi was facing renewed criticism over the Trump donation and her decision not to join the lawsuit, her spokesman said that Bondi had solicited the donation directly from Trump several weeks before her office announced it was considering joining the lawsuit against him.^[21][26][27] Bondi and Trump did not reconcile their competing versions of events. On March 14, 2016, Bondi endorsed Trump in the Florida presidential primary, saying she has been friends with Trump "for many years."^[28][29] In June 2016, a spokesperson for Governor Rick Scott stated that the state's ethics commission is looking into the matter.^[30] Nothing further came from that investigation. In September 2016, the IRS determined that the donation to Bondi's PAC violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations, and ordered Donald Trump to pay a fine for the illegal contribution. Trump also was required to reimburse the foundation for the sum that had been donated to Bondi.^[31] Neither Bondi nor her PAC were fined or criminally charged for soliciting and accepting an illegal donation. In November 2019, Trump was ordered by a New York state court to close down the foundation and pay $2 million in damages for misusing it, including the illegal payment to Bondi.^[32]Pam Bondi also pressured two attorneys to resign who were investigating the technology giant Black Knight, then LPS, following the robosigning scandal, as part of their work for Florida's Economic Crime Division, after she received large campaign contributions from LPS.^[33]"

Republicans Were Rabid About Obama et al With Under1% of the Hard Evidence We Have On Trump And His Cronies

[Warning.  I've kept the kleenex box close today was the cold I thought had left a month ago, came roaring back.  If I were grading this post, I'd say it rambles, needs rearranging to make the flow work better, and doesn't really focus.  But I'm too drippy to revise it.  The basic theme is nothing you don't already know:  The Republicans have abandoned logic, principles, the constitution, and consistency, and the truth.  But if that sounds too repetitious and depressing, follow this link to a really cool rethinking of lined notebook paper.  And blogger wouldn't take < in the title, so I had to write 'under']]



From someone who has observed Jim Jordan for a while, we get this blistering commentary by retired Cleveland Plains Dealer editor, titled "Jim Jordan was imposed on us for egregiously partisan reasons. Now he’s afflicting the nation."[Link corrected]

In his Washington Post column of Nov. 14, Gerson showed his keen understanding of Jordan, describing him as “the Truly Trumpian Man – guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.”

And there are these hints that Nunes was part of the plot to get Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden  "Giuliani associate willing to testify Rep. Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official, attorney says"

The attorney for an indicted associate of President Donald Trump's personal lawyer says his client is willing to tell Congress that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., met with Ukraine's former top prosecutor about investigating the activities of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. . .
If true, the allegation would mean that Nunes — the chief defender of Trump as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which has been holding impeachment hearings for several weeks — was himself involved in the very plot the committee is investigating. 

Yet the Republican Senate is quite likely to acquit Trump if the House turns over impeachment to them.  We hear stories how they are disgusted, but don't want to lose in the primaries where they face Trump cult members.  These are kids that fawn over the bully, lest he suddenly decide to attack them.  Just think about how he insulted the Republican candidates running against him in the primary - Rubio, Cruz, Graham, for instance - are now all his toadies.

But maybe the bully metaphors are the wrong ones.  From Machievelli on we've had variations of don't take on the king unless you're going to kill him.  And so Republicans are biding their time.

We get new stories like this daily.  Yet the Republicans are busy trying to deflect attention on Joe Biden's son, or lack of transparency, or too much transparency, or witch-hunts. or that impeachment is unconstitutional overturning of the election.

Remember how exercised they got over Bill Clinton talking to then Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport?  Even Real Clear Politics, a right leaning web news aggregator, could only buttress the impropriety innuendos with 'strange':

"Strange. One can understand that Lynch needs to maintain that there was no conversation about Hillary’s email predicament — she’s repeated that enough times that there’s no going back. But if they didn’t have that to talk about, they didn’t have much else to say to one another. It would be one thing if theirs had been a random run-in. But do ex-presidents really just appear at the perfect time to talk to the perfect person who is perfectly positioned to make an imperfect situation go away? If the talk was really about nothing, why was Bill Clinton so eager to have it? So eager that he was at the airport in time to catch Lynch before she got off her plane; so eager that ascending the stairs to the airplane doorway, he had all but pushed past Lynch’s head of security. Strange indeed."

This is dated May 16, 2019 - they had three years to get more than innuendo.  Why didn't they interview the flight crew they said were present?  Because even if there was something there, the Hilary Clinton Email Servers, was only an issue because the Republicans (one can guess, with the support of the Russians) made it an issue.

Yet people who tried to make their careers on stories like this, see absolutely nothing wrong with the president shaking down Zelensky, or Sondland talking to the president on his personal cell phone in a restaurant in Kiev where people around them could listen in.



Now, let me say that  Lev Parnas, the convict who's offered to out Nunes is not someone I would trust on most things.  He certainly would know, but I don't know enough about his motivation.  Does he think Trump won't get around to pardoning him on time so he's making a deal with the whoever else could lighten his sentence?  If so, how can we trust him not to lie to save himself?  Or is he making an offer which will turn out to be fake to embarrass the Democrats and blow up their investigation?  Is he just signaling Trump or others by having his attorney make this offer?  If so what's he saying?  (I suspect that's not the case since all these folks seem to have pretty good access to the president.  But maybe that's only when they're making $100K donations.)


As I've said before, what we're seeing is how many people have never grown up, never gotten over their (probably parent induced) inferiority complexes.  Trump tells them their boorishness, misogyny, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are all perfectly all right.  He tells them that in his words and in his actions

But it doesn't even matter.  There's already enough out there to impeach Trump 50 times.

Henry v MOA - Drug Day And What Is The Plaintiff Trying To Do?

[I've started a new tab on top - Henry v MOA - so you can find all the posts on this topic.]

I feel like I've walked into the tar pits and the case is sucking me under.  The still mild weather at least allows me exercise and some time with trees as I ride to and from court.  I'd show pictures, but the security at the court told me not to bring my camera any more because I'm not allowed to take it into the court section of the Federal Building and they aren't allowed to hold it for me - as they did last time I covered a trial and for the first few days.  I think it's because I got out late the other day and it was locked in overnight and others asked about it. The next day they wanted to give it back to me in the morning.  But I was going into court.  Should I hide it in the bushes in the atrium?  Sorry, can't take it to my car because I'm on my bike.  We need you to take it by noon.  I found someone in court who could take it out to his car at noon and I got it after court was over.  So now I have to leave it at home.  And no, I only have what someone called a 'smart enough' phone,  I don't think it takes pictures.  But yes, people can take their smart phones up.  I also learned they now have wifi in the court area.  I'm trying not use it.  One of the benefits of going to the trial is not having access to the internet.

I'm writing all this because it's much easier than trying to write about what happened in the courtroom.  First, I got there late, so I missed the finishing up of Ann Kirklund, the FBI agent. She was a great witness yesterday, very credible and I'm sorry I missed her testimony this morning.  I thought they were going to put on the economist to talk about how he calculated the backpay and pension award should Henry win his case.  I had gone to Karen Hunt's OLE class on the 2nd Amendment.  That was interesting.  OK, I need to get to the task at hand.

I got into court around 11am.  The new witness was taking the stand - Joseph Hazelaar.  (The name was hard for me to keep in my head so I looked it up.  It means hazel or hazel wood in Dutch.)

But before getting into details, let me try to outline what I'm starting to see as the strategy of Anthony Henry's attorneys  Since I didn't get to the first several days of the trial,  I missed the opening arguments which, presumably, would have spelled this out.  So I have to tease it out from the myriad details that my gut says we are hearing repeated way too much.  Today I heard Ray Brown ask the exact same questions about an hour apart.  But I'm sure there's a reason that I don't yet fathom.

Anyway, here's my overview based on what I've seen since last Friday.

Basically, Henry’s legal team is trying to disprove the allegations against Henry that came out in the Brown Report.  They are doing it by:

1.  Disputing facts:
1. That telling Gen Katkus about a National Guard member who was a drug suspect did NOT make the drug investigation ‘go sideways’
1. Showing that the drug investigation continued very successfully after Katkus was informed 
2. Informants continued cooperating
2. That what Henry did (informing Katkus) was completely normal and followed procedures
2. Trying to show that certain APD officers - particularly Jack Carson - ran a rogue investigation of the Guard and filed false allegations against Henry
3. Showing that Investigator Rick Brown was NOT an independent investigator, but rather was a captive of people in the Muni who wanted to get evidence to terminate Henry, particularly Jack Carson and  Asst Municipal Attorney Blair Christiansen.  AND that Rick Brown wasn’t competent to do the study.
4. Showing that Carson had personal reasons for wanting to go after the National Guard and harass Henry with complaints.   

These are things that seemed likely based on (mostly) today's testimony.

The Municipality of Anchorage is the defendant, but in a sense, Anthony Henry is on trial, or perhaps on appeal of the decision the Municipality made to terminate him.  So, he has to prove MOA made an incorrect  decision.

To do that, they have to drag  the jury through a mire of details.  And the jury has to see how each of the seemingly random bits of information come together to make the case.  The problem I'm having is figuring out which of the many details we're going through are directly relevant to proving their points, which are necessary to understand those directly relevant points, and which are just distracting.

For example, here are a few of the details I got to sit through today:

1. Technical stuff about how FBI, APD, DEA, State Troopers coordinate through the Safe Street program and a program that seems to overlap with Safe Streets called OCDETF. (They pronounce it something like “Ocidet”).  It stands for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.   This seems to be in there to make the point there was only one investigation of drugs at the National Guard, and thus Jack Carson's claims that there was a separate one at SAU (Special Assignments Unit) at APD (Anchorage Police Department) would be false.  
2. Understand more about how the task force with different jurisdictions work.  Again this seems aimed at delegitimizing Jack Carson.
3. Technical details for processing suspects and requirements for recording interviews. Aimed at showing why Carson's claims were false.
4. Jurisdictional issues like APD wouldn’t pick up $7000 in drug money in Glenallen, because it’s outside their jurisdiction, so troopers would do it, or why they would be collecting the money.  I’m not sure, but I understood it to be related to working with informants and supplying drugs for an outlying area that can’t afford to buy large amounts, so they wait to collect it after the person sells it.  Someone (Carson again?) claimed an APD officer did this.
5. How much cocaine would stay an APD case, and how much would go to the FBI Task Force.  Little stuff stays in Anchorage, big stuff to FBI.  To delegitimize Carson's claims the SAU was also investigating.
6. FBI would have to get permission from Headquarters to investigate a high level official like a General.  Why Henry, as part of the FBI run task force, couldn't do an undercover investigation of General Katkus on his own.  I think.
7. Drug deals happening more in parking lots, because police get search warrants for houses. Random, not essential for the case, I think.
8. Background on Jack Carson  To explain his motive.
9. Undercover agents don’t see the confidential informants they manage in person very often, but frequently by phone. Random? And they don’t last long in that relationship. To dispute Carson's claims that telling Katkus ended the informant's cooperation.
10. A jumpout is a drug bust with lots of unmarked cars. There was a big one at the Debarr Costco parking lot in 2010.  Show that the operation didn't die after Katkus was informed.
11. You need a Glass Warrant if you are state or local law enforcement before you do an audio recording of someone who doesn’t know you’re law enforcement.  I think again to dispute Carson.

I'd note, I made the list of details, by going through my rough trial notes from today. But then I added the italics as I tried to see if I could connect the detail with one of their goals.  The exercise was illuminating to me.  It's mostly aimed at Jack Carson.  I did hear Herny's attorney say they will not call Carson as a witness.  Is he also on the defense's list.  He's someone I want to see for myself.  He's turning out to be the villain of the plaintiff's story.


Today, from a different perspective.  As I said somewhere up above, when I came in Joseph Hazelaar was being sworn in.

I think it's easiest to just give you my rough notes for his background.  They're abbreviated, but a much better option than the long tedious testimony that dragged out until 4:30 when the judge dismissed the jury.  I've combined the questions and the answers so I could keep up.

"Born?  grew up? in Virginia,  HS diploma
14 years in law enforcement
State Troopers, DEA, FBI
4 years in Fairbanks, patrol officer.
Transferred out to Bethel 2004, first drug ring
Training?  Canine handler, OJT, then started sending me to academies
Undercover or as detective?  Both
Dependent on case  - rural Alaska no real undercover, might bring people in temporarily as undercover
DEA 2006 transferred to major offenders, high level drug, the 2007 assigment with DEA to 2010.  Transferred to APD.  Coming out of DEA, not wanting to go back to troopers, Capt. Mallard thinking of assign with cooperation with APD.  To work under Lt. Henry at APD.  Into SAU Special Assignment Unit
Clearance, deputized for DEA, doesn’t cross over to FBI
How long in SAU til full fledged? - on paper around April, still had limited access, still reporting to Annie Kirklund, About April 2010.
Stil police officer?  No.  Self- employed, Fire arms industry.  [I think that's what he said]
Still have contact with law enforcement.  Yes
Terminated?  No
Terminated from Troopers?  April 13, 2011
Rehired?  April 2013
Investigation going on?  Rehired you following investigation?  Remained trooper a while?  Year and a half?
Terminated again?  Yes, I could not hold my Alaska Police Standards Certificate.
Finding against you of dishonesty?  Yes sir."

OK, so he lost his Alaska Police Standards Certificate for dishonesty.  When I looked up the meaning of his name I also got the decision about his certificate.

He also talked in detail about his undercover work, including a meeting with a representative of a Mexican drug cartel.

When he was questioned by Ray Brown for the plaintiff Henry, he was a very credible witness, answering quickly, articulately.  Seemed to know a lot of details.  But when he was questioned by the defense attorney Doug Parker, his yesses and nos got crisper and tighter.  And he couldn't remember as well. He looked like he was trying to calculate what Parker was tricking him into saying. And a couple of times he seemed to get riled a bit and pushed back with attitude.  Nothing remarkable, but enough to show that calm facade wasn't who this person always is.

And as he testified, I began thinking.  Here's a guy whose job (as undercover agent) depended on his ability to lie convincingly.  But also outside that job, he'd lied enough to get caught and to lose his police certificate.  Jury, be careful here.  (Of course, that's rhetorical since the jury aren't allowed to listen to any news about the trial.)

How much more detail do you want?  Because I'm running out of steam.  I hinted at a lot with my list of details.  Here's something that got me thinking.  Hazelaar told the story of having a confidential informant connect hm up the chain to a high level drug dealer. The names of the people who gave names and the people who were named were discussed in court.  I don't know what happened to the people involved (I asked and was told he couldn't reveal that.)  But I wondered what would happen if word got out to the guy who was informed on.  The names were originally redacted in the documents filed with the court before the trial, but in the trial they are all being discussed.  One attorney told me they had to because using initials was too confusing for the attorneys and the jury.  But I wonder.  I suspect no one is going to publish the names (I'm not) and they will never find out.

He also explained why the drug investigation had to be sped up around the time Henry told General Katkus there was a drug dealer in the National Guard.  It wasn't because  Katkus tipped people off to hide the drugs.  Rather, they had put a tracker and gps on the target's car.  But he found out right away.  How?  He took his tires in to be changed and the mechanic found it.  So lesson learned;  don't put trackers on cars when it's time to change to or from snow tires.  The mechanic thought it was a bomb.


This post sort of wanders from subject to subject, and from one style to another.  In that sense, it gives you an idea of what court feels like.  But I hope it was easier to follow.  It's certainly takes less of your time.

I could laugh at this, except that a Supreme Court seat is at stake

When I read about Kavanaugh confirmation strategist Ed Whelan concocting bizarre stories to explain Kavanaugh out of trouble over Dr. Ford's charges of sexual assault, I couldn't help but think of 10 year olds thinking they could outsmart their grandmother with some crazy story about how the window got broken but not by them..  (For those who have been marooned on a desert island, the story Whelan came up with, is that Ford misidentified the person who sexually assaulted her.  It was really some other guy.)

The excuse is so full of holes, I just had to look online to find the worst ever alibis.  

Whelan's efforts seem about as simple-minded as the ideas listed in a post at Cracked  entitled, "The 7 Stupidest Alibis in the History of Crime"

First, there are the stories that, like Whelan's, try to blame someone else:

#7  "My cat downloaded all that child pornography."

and

#1  "It was my evil twin!"

Whelan's story falls right into this pattern. The evil twin seems to be the best fit -  the other guy supposedly looks a lot like Kavanaugh.   But Whelan's efforts have fallen apart, badly. 

Just in case he's working on more cockamamy excuses, we can look at the other five stupidest alibis.  

Here are two I'll call the  "I'm immune" alibis:

#5  "I am a Texas Republican sovereignty."  

I guess Kavanaugh was counting on a version of this one before Ford showed up, only Kavanaugh's variation is "I'm a member of the Federalist Society."  I guess he's still using that and Grassley is still accepting that as a valid excuse for anything.  Though Whelan (the head of the "Ethics and Public Policy Center, mind you, and a fervent Federalist) is helping, along with Kavanaugh to strip off the veneer of purity and respectability the Federalist Society has long dazzled Republicans with.

The other example of "I'm immune":

#2  "I worship the Norse gods!"

Kavanaugh's offers, "I worship the constitution” which up til now has made him immune to most everything.

What should I call this next one?  The plagiarist alibi?

#4  "Did you see Law and Order last night? It was exactly like that."  

Actually, Democrats are using  this one:"Did you see the Anita Hill hearings?  It was exactly like that."

Then there are these two that blame "things" for their behavior.   

#3 "I shot someone six times because I was on a diet."  

This worked for Dan White, and perhaps Kavanaugh would argue the alcohol made him do it, but that would acknowledge he did it.  But given what Whelan's done already, who knows? (Actually Snopes explains that White didn't actually claim the Twinkies made him do.   I'm letting you know so I'm not spreading false rumors.)

And

# 6 "The alignment in my car is bad."  (You really have to go to Cracked to appreciate the absurdity of how this and the other alibis were used.)

This would be a variation of the diet alibi, like "the bed in that room knocked me on top of her."

As the title says, I could laugh at this, except that a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

 [The #s are the rankings that Cracked gave these alibis.]

Two Takes On McMaster's Defense Of Trump - Both Acknowledge He Spoke In Code And Translate

Part 1:  Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler examines National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster's handling of media questions about the President's revealing of classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.  

"When a White House is confronted with a negative news story, officials face a difficult challenge if the story is largely correct. A common PR technique is to deny things that are not in the story or to make sweeping declarations while ignoring the specifics." (emphasis added)

Kessler goes on to interpret different answers McMaster gave and what it actually means.  For example, here's the first quote:

What McMaster said:

“'What I’m saying is really the premise of that article is false, that in any way the president had a conversation that was inappropriate or that resulted in any kind of lapse in national security.' 

What Kessler says it means:

Now McMaster says the “premise” of the article is false. In other words, it made the president look bad, not that it was wrong." 

Kessler is using McMaster to generalize about how to obfuscate when the telling the truth isn't allowed.  You can read  all the examples at the Washington Post. This is a good lesson on interpreting those hired to defend the indefensible.


Part 2:  For a different take on this, more of a defense of McMaster, listen to NPR, where  Retired Lt. Col. John Nagl talks to host Rachel Martin about McMaster whom Nagl says he knows well from working together in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This interview itself is an interesting exercise as Nagl argues that McMaster is

• in an impossible position
• defending the indefensible
• lending his credibility to the president
• not telling the whole truth, but not lying either
• tarnishing his reputation only because the fate of the world could depend on it

 Below is the audio, and below that I wrote out a rough transcript of the interview.  But first a few comments.

Kessler, in the beginning of this post, parsed McMaster's words.  I think it's also important to do the same with Nagl's words  about McMaster and Nagl's intent in this interview.

On a general level - what is Nagl's purpose here?

• to defend McMaster?  In general, or to a defend a personal friend's reputation?
• to give the general listeners background so they can better understand McMaster?  
• to say McMaster knows Trump is lying, and is only defending Trump in a way that allows astute listeners, like reporter Kessler above, to see that he isn't really defending the president, but in order to stay in the administration to keep it from doing anything even worse?

I'll raise more specific questions down below.  Here's the audio from NPR and below it my rough transcript. [Now that this is finished, I see that NPR has the transcript up there too.]

Host Rachel Martin gives background and a bit of audio from HR McMaster responding to questions from the media.  Then she introduces retired Lt. Col. John Nagl, who has known McMaster for a long time.  She asks him:

Q: What do you hear Gen. McMaster trying to do in his public explanations of the president’s actions?
A: HR is in an absolutely impossible situation. and many of us, his friends were concerned that something like this was going to happen when he took this job working for this administration.
He is a man of extraordinary integrity and honor and he’s got a president who has clearly done damage to the United States and to our relationships with our allies around the globe, and meanwhile he’s walking a very fine line around the truth, parsing his words very carefully when he makes statements defending what the president did.
Q:  Parsing his words. Do you think he’s telling the whole truth when he’s defending the president’s actions?
A:  I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I’m reminded of an early class in West Point honor code. HR took that same class.  One of the scenarios the discussed is, what happens if you’ve been invited to a dinner and the dinner was horrible, and the hostess asks, “How did you enjoy dinner?”  What we’re taught to say at that point is,  “I really enjoyed being here and the company I was in.”
That’s what I think HR is doing right now.  I think he is not answering the question he was asked and I think that he is doing so, knowing, absolutely in full cognizance of the fact that he is not telling the whole truth, but he’s being very careful not to tell lies.
Q:  Although the stakes obviously are so much higher than those of insulting a hostess of a dinner party.
A:  The stakes, at this point, and in particular with the Comey revelations that came out last night, literally the fate of the earth could be in HR McMaster’s hands at this point.  The administration is clearly in free fall and HR McMaster is exactly the man the nation needs to have at the center of things at the White House to hold to hold all the pieces together
Q: So because  you know him so well, you think that’s the calculation he made, that it’s better to be there and have to obfuscate from time to time?
A:  I obviously think he’s in an absolutely impossible position.  The president expects him to defend the indefensible.  Nobody else in the administration has the credibility that HR has, and the president is using HR’s credibility in order to try to buttress himself.  HR can’t be completely comfortable with that.  His friends and I believe that it’s worth HR giving up some of his well earned reputation for integrity.  He can be a little tarnished around the edges, we can get the Pope to give him an absolution, because, literally, the fate of the world could depend on his love of country, his judgment, his intelligence, his service in the White House at this absolutely critical time. [emphasis added]

The crux of this, as I see it, is Nagl's statements about the fate of the world.  It's the only justification he gives for McMaster 'tarnishing his reputation' by 'defending the indefensible.'

"the fate of the world could depend on his love of country, his judgment, his intelligence, his service in the White House at this absolutely critical time."

But interviewer Rachel Martin never asks Nagl what it is that McMaster can do in the White House that could change the fate of the world.  She never asks him how he can "hold all the pieces together."

• Does Nagl think McMaster can talk Trump into being more reasonable?  
• That he can stop him from doing terrible things?  If so, like what?  And how would he stop him?  
• Does he think it's important to have someone like McMaster there simply as a witness?  
• And how does lending the president his credibility help the country?   

And while Martin does say that the stakes are much higher than not insulting a dinner hostess, she doesn't pursue whether that lesson is appropriate here.  

Not insulting the dinner hostess involves not hurting one person's feelings.  It's simple human courtesy between two people that has no bigger world consequences.  

But obfuscating to the American public about a US president revealing classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, is NOT about simple human courtesies.  It is, as Nagl says, defending the indefensible.  

One last question is:  Why did NPR do this interview?  I guess I have the same questions for NPR as the ones I raised above for Nagl.  

The interview does add to my knowledge of McMaster, but why didn't Martin ask those critical, and to me obvious, questions about how exactly can McMaster help shape the fate of the world positively by being in the administration and dissembling to the press  as Nagl acknowledges he did?   

She didn't ask whether, perhaps, McMaster is overestimating his own abilities to 'hold the pieces together.'

Lots of questions here.  

What Does Fail Mean? This Ad Fails In Every Way

This ad was in the Wednesday, March 8, 2017 Alaska Dispatch News and it's full of misinformation and manipulation of the facts.  (Not sure how to link an ad so that non-subscribers can see it in the paper, but it's on page A-5)

The headline claims Obamacare has failed.  But ask the 10 million or so people who now have coverage because of Obamacare whether it failed.  It's only failed in conservative ideology whose proponents failed to block the Affordable Care Act, and failed to repeal it.   Obamacare isn't perfect, but I would argue that most of the problems are there because the Republicans, in their fervor to repeal it, refused to work with Democrats to make improvements.  What they feared, came true.  Americans don't want to lose their health insurance.

But let's look at the ad.  Here are three key claims:

• "Premiums are skyrocketing"
• "Our choices are limited"
• "Alaskans are losing coverage"

Premiums are skyrocketing

Note the quote "Skyrocketing premiums as high as 40%."   I checked the Alaska Dispatch October 30, 2016.  I could not find this article in that day's edition. (Here's the link, but you have to be a subscriber to see the archive.

But using the words in the claim, I did find this article from 2011, before Obamacare went into effect.

"HEALTH CARE: 9 percent rise far outpaces wages, inflation.
BY TONY PUGH
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON After modest increases last year, the cost of job-based health insurance for families and individuals has jumped sharply this year, even though insurers are paying less in benefi ts as cash-strapped American workers opt for less medical care.
For the estimated 150 million workers with employer-sponsored coverage, the average cost of family health insurance jumped 9 percent this year to $15,073, while the price of individual coverage rose 8 percent to $5,429.
What is clear, however, is that family coverage premiums have climbed 113 percent since 2001, compared with a 34 percent rise in workers’ wages and a 27 percent increase in inflation over the period.
Employers still absorb the bulk of insurance costs. They pay an average of 72 percent, nearly
$11,000, toward the cost of family coverage. Workers pay about 28 percent, an average of $4,129. For single coverage, workers pay about 18 percent, or $921, in premiums, while employers pay the rest, about $4,508." [Emphasis added]

 The citation mentions the Alaska Dispatch News September 28, 2016. (I think you have to be a subscriber to see the link.)  But if you look at that edition of the ADN, there's nothing there about this.  If you look harder, there's an opinion piece by Dermot Cole published  June 20,2015 and updated Sept. 28) but it's actually titled:

"17,000 Alaskans face risk of losing health insurance subsidies" (emphasis added)

So,
It's not "lost coverage"  it's "risk of losing."

And it's not losing insurance, but subsidies. Here's the beginning of the article: (this link should work)

"17,000 Alaskans face risk of losing health insurance subsidies
 Author: Dermot Cole   Updated: September 28, 2016   Published June 20, 2015
Robin Barker, a longtime resident of Fairbanks and Bethel, struggled with chronic illnesses for years that kept her from working. Her only option for health insurance cost nearly $800 a month for a policy that came with a $15,000 deductible. Prescriptions alone set her back $12,000 a year."

Why were these subsidies at risk?  Because, according to this Washington Post article:

"The challenge to the health-care law was brought by the same conservative legal strategists who three years ago fell one vote short of convincing the court that the law was unconstitutional. The latest challenge was about how the law is to be carried out."

If we could figure out who "One Nation" (the funders of this ad) is, we might find that the people who fought to get rid of the subsidies all the way to the Supreme Court were funded by the same people who now use that failed court challenge as though they had won.

A few days after this article was published in June 2015 the US Supreme Court ruled to keep the subsidies 6-3.  (Only Scalia, Thomas, and Alito opposed.)  So, in fact they didn't lose those subsidies and the quote is made up to warp people's understanding of ACA.

They are misleading readers further by saying people would lose coverage, when in fact it was a subsidy to buy the coverage, which, in fact, they didn't lose.

Limited choices with only one insurer in the marketplace

This link does take us to the New York Times story cited, which  does mostly say that five states, and parts of other states, are likely to have just one insurer in 2017.  But this article was published a month or so before the final decisions were to be made, so it's not clear how things ended up.  "Many" turns out to be in the article:

"17 percent of Americans eligible for an Affordable Care Act plan may have only one insurer to choose next year. "

Why would 17% of Americans have only one choice?  Paul Krugman argued

". . .  it would be quite easy to fix the system. It seems clear that subsidies for purchasing insurance, and in some cases for insurers themselves, should be somewhat bigger — an affordable proposition given that the program so far has come in under budget... There should also be a reinforced effort to ensure that healthy Americans buy insurance, as the law requires, rather than them waiting until they get sick. Such measures would go a long way toward getting things back on track."

He goes on to argue that if there were a public insurance option, the problem would also be solved, but that insurance companies opposed that strongly.  But if insurance companies say they can't afford to offer insurance, he goes on, then a public option should be available to provide the competition that a market needs to keep rates lowers.

And finally, this third headline - limited choice - ignores the fact that before Obamacare, many more Americans had NO choice of health insurance.  For them, one choice probably seems better than no choice.

And given that Republicans made repealing Obamacare their top priority, it's clear they wanted it to fail in order to fulfill their own prophecies.  Sure, Obamacare is not perfect, but millions of Americans now have health insurance who didn't before.

The ad tells you to call Lisa Murkowski's office and "thank [her] for fighting to repeal and replace Obamacare."  I'd suggest that you call and ask her who put out this ad in her name and that you do not support the repeal of Obamacare until there is a replacement that's at least as good (covers the same number of Americans and has the same affordability levels) as Obamacare.  The number they listed is 907 271 3735.  I got right through.  It only takes a minute to do.  It's more important for Alaskans to do this, so share the number and this post with other Alaskans.

And who is One Nation?  Not sure who funds them.  But their website (you can google it) sounds much more reasonable than our president, but basically wants to stop Obamacare and get public funds to private schools among other things.

Finally, there's the question of the ADN's responsibility to monitor 'alternative facts' in paid ads in their paper.  Especially when the ADN itself is wrongly cited.  I don't think they should ban such ads, but they should alert readers that the citations are wrong and the claims are, at best, misleading.  I know that's not part of traditional journalism, but in this time of a president who lives in an alternative reality and lies regularly, traditional journalists are learning new ways to get readers closer to the truth.

Can An Alternative Fact Sell Jeans?

The first time I was aware of alternative facts in advertising, I was about ten or eleven.  I'd ordered the 'fresh' strawberries from the menu.  When they came, they were obviously frozen strawberries.  I told the waitress that they weren't fresh.  "Sure they are," she said, "their fresh frozen."

So lying in advertising is probably as old as advertising.

But announcing that what your are saying is a lie, I don't recall any ads like that before.

Here's a San Francisco billboard I saw today.

Maybe this is just a local joke, since Levis, the Gap, and Betabrand are headquartered in San Francisco.


*For the visually impaired, the billboard in the image says:

"Alternative Fact:

We're now bigger than

Levi's and Gap

Combined"

Betabrand

NOW YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING."

Supreme Court Chooses Facts Over Malarky In Texas Abortion Case

Most people seemed to understand that the 2013 changes in requirements for abortion clinics in Texas  were just smokescreens.When the case finally made it to the US Supreme Court, Justice Breyer called them on it (from Mother Jones):

"Justice Breyer explains several times in his opinion that the court did not buy Texas' argument that the admitting privileges and ASC requirements benefit women's health. "Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in death," he wrote, "but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient's own home. Colonoscopy, a procedure that typically takes place outside a hospital (or surgical center) setting, has a mortality rate 10 times higher than an abortion." Breyer adds in a parenthetical that he repeated from the bench, and that Justice Kagan mentioned during oral arguments in March: "The mortality rate for liposuction, another outpatient procedure, is 28 times higher than the mortality rate for abortion." Of the admitting privileges requirement, Breyer writes bluntly: "We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case."

Since Texas lost at the lower court level, a four-four tie would have meant Texas lost their case (and the women of Texas had won.)  But with Kennedy joining the majority, it means that even without a new Obama or Clinton appointee, abortion rights for women who need them, are safe at the Supreme Court for a while.

Texas lawmakers' intention to circumvent the law of the land by pretending to make rules to protect the safety of women getting abortions didn't pass the red face test.  Breyer cited those examples of more dangerous procedures that don't have the same kinds of restrictions to show it wasn't safety they were concerned with.  There really ought to be a way to make such lawmakers accountable for all the heartaches and extra expenses it caused women, not to mention the disruptions to many clinics, and the time wasted taking this to the US Supreme Court.  But I suspect some of those lawmakers are smirking and happy for all those issues I just listed.

For the whole Supreme Court decision, click here.

A Meditation On Lying and Liars

This is sort of an addendum to an earlier post that looked at different roles that legislators can play in committee meetings.  Trying to figure out the specific roles any legislator plays is made difficult because they may be, are you ready? - lying.  I know.  Our responses to reports that politicians are lying ranges from "Oh how terrible!" to "What did you expect?" 

I don't want to accuse all politicians of regularly lying though.  The word "to lie" is sort of like the word 'blue.'  There are lots of different blues and there are lots of different lies.  But while artists and paint companies have come up with words to identify different shades of blue, our vocabulary of lies is impoverished.

We make the word the one word 'lie' cover a variety of different behaviors - some inexcusable and some so common that all of us engage in them.  In fact, if we didn't tell our sweethearts they look good, when they ask, we'd be considered rude.  

In her book Lying, Sisela Bok, asks readers to consider a world where no one told the truth.  One couldn't believe anything and would have to verify everything oneself.  But that would be impossible because you couldn't trust what people said or wrote.  Thus a system where people tell the truth benefits us all.  It makes our lives much easier.  But suppose you wanted to enjoy those benefits plus a little more.

"The fact that a system of truth-telling benefits you enormously doesn’t by itself justify your adhering to the Principle of Veracity. After all, if personal benefit is all that counts for you, then why not reap all the benefits that a system of truth-telling brings, and then reap a little bit more by lying for personal gain?
Of course, you couldn’t announce your policy to the public; it would have to remain your secret. You don’t want to undermine the practice of telling the truth. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to gain anything from your lies. And you don’t want people to distrust you. A lie is advantageous only in circumstances where people will believe it – only where a practice of truth-telling generally prevails. Such a practice prevails only when most people are doing their part to support it – that is, when most people are telling the truth. The liar, then, wants to be a free rider. She wants others to do their part to maintain a system, while she skips doing her part. She reaps the benefits of the system without investing the reciprocal sacrifice of supporting it." [From Infed]

Let's say there's a continuum of liars:  from whoppers are normal to only tell little white lies. 

Whoppers Are  Normal   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Only Little White Lies

Whoppers are things like, "I didn't have sexual intercourse with that woman."  Or “We found the weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. We found biological laboratories.”

Little white lies are more like, "Thanks for the tie, it's just what I wanted."  And there's a wide range in between.  


We all tend to think that others behave roughly like we do.  I'd argue that people on the whopper side of the continuum lie so often they think it's normal and that everyone lies.  And maybe they grew up in families where that was true.  Thus they don't trust anyone.  That's a little different from what Bok argues.  She's talking about a theoretical model where everyone benefits from truth-telling.  But I don't think people think this out so logically.  I suspect some liars know that most people are more truthful and take advantage of that. 

On the white lie end are people who wouldn't think of telling a lie any more egregious than answering a questions more positively than they actually feel. "It's delicious."  "I'll call you."   They believe in honesty, but also believe you can soften it a little to avoid upsetting people.  They are slow at recognizing big liars because it's hard to believe that people lie so blatantly. 

I tend to be on the white lie end.  For me, leaving out something important is akin to lying.  I'm not good at spotting liars, unless it's a situation I know well.  I don't notice the little body language tips.  I have to listen carefully to what they say and weigh the logic.  Only when people's stories are full of inconsistencies or at odds with what I know, do I start to consider the possibility that they are lying.

I've been reminded of the importance and the destructiveness of liars in the last week because we've been watching the old FX series Damages.  Glenn Close plays Patty Hewes, a high stakes lawyer, who in one episode actually asks a witness she's questioning, "When did you start lying?"  The witness protests she's not lying.  Patty Hewes goes on, "I was seven when I started lying regularly."  She's lies so shamelessly and to the people closest to her, people whose loyalty she demands.  We like to think that liars get found out and lose their positions of power.  But when enough of the other players are also liars, they don't out each other.  It's part of the game, even makes it more interesting for them, I guess - figuring out when someone is telling the truth and when they're lying.  Certainly in Damages, the lies pile up on each other.  Even when Patty Hughes starts to level with someone, she tends to add new lies.  (Oh, and yeah, it turns out that witness she was questioning was leaving out the cocaine addiction.)

It drives white lie folks crazy.  It's against our rules.  And while the liars may continue in their positions of power, there are costs.  In Patty Hewes' case, her 17 year old son despises her and causes her no end of frustration.

We've all seen these people lie and lie and lie, until they are caught.  Lance Armstrong insisted he hadn't doped.  Richard Nixon said he wasn't a crook.  Bill Clinton swore he didn't have sex with that woman.  Bernie Madoff lied $50 billion dollars from his friends and family even. If we look at a Tim Shipman's Atlantic Monthly article on Madoff, we can find some of the reasons people trusted him:

1.  susceptibility to his charm
2.  greed 

"charmer whose hedge fund ensnared wealthy Americans with the promise of record dividends."

3. he was seen by many investors as a tribe member

"what cuts deepest is Madoff’s betrayal of his fellow Jews"

Writer Tim Shipman goes on to ask how Madoff got away with it for so long.  Various people had raised questions starting as far back as the 1970s, but it wasn't until 2008 that he was finally busted.

"In 1995, [independent investigator, Harry Markopolos] sent the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the financial watchdog, a 17-page statement: “The World’s Largest Hedge Fund Is a Fraud”.
Two years later, the commission found no evidence of fraud after an investigation that seems to have involved little more than asking Madoff whether he was a crook, and accepting his answers.
SEC boss Christopher Cox last week denounced multiple failures at his agency and launched an internal investigation of the relationships between his officials and Madoff, including Eric Swanson, who had at one point been involved in monitoring Madoff’s firm and later married his niece, Shana Madoff"

So, we see a lot of deference to a well known, wealthy and connected man.  In Damages there are corrupt police officers and government officials who quash investigations or even set them up to intimidate enemies.

I'd also mention the movie Merchants of Doubt which we saw last night.  They delve into a group of 'scientists' who started by attacking tobacco industry critics.  They developed a tool chest for raising doubt when, in fact, no scientific doubt actually existed.  They'd attack the messenger, which is much easier than attacking the science.  Many of the tobacco companies'  'merchants of doubt' adapted these tools to protect other industries as they fought off regulation - like the fire retardant companies who had persuaded law makers to require putting tons of toxic chemicals in all sorts of products.  Then they moved on to fight climate change which, around 2008, the movie says, was accepted by key Republican politicians including George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and others.  But they quickly back tracked when these merchants of doubt 'educated' on them.  Rep. Inglis, Republican from South Carolina, was educated at the polls when he started saying that climate change was real. 

Truth is not an important commodity for these merchants of doubt, whose sole goal is to postpone government action as long as possible while their client corporations made as much money as they can, usually at the expense of the environment and the health of Americans.  

I raise this issue of lying as one more issue to consider when you watch our legislature.  Who are today's merchants of doubt and which of our legislators are responding to their influence?  We know, for instance, that Americans for Prosperity have opened offices in many states, including Alaska, to fight various issues, including Medicaid expansion.  And we know that the Republican majorities in the Alaska House and Senate refuse to compromise on Medicaid expansion even though a majority of Alaskans want it passed, even though it will add health care for 40,000 Alaskans, and bring lots of federal dollars to Alaska.   Without the merchants of doubt deliberately poisoning the public discourse, this legislation would have passed long ago. 

Thinking about lying, about specific liars who famously lied, about how long we let liars get away with lying, about what evidence we need to finally realize they're lying, are all good exercises so that we can spot today's merchants of doubt and the politicians who help them block legislation everyone wants.

I'd add two more points to consider:

1.  Not all politicians lie.  There are honest politicians.  They may not always volunteer everything, but they are clearly much closer to the white lies end of the scale.  This is important.  I would wager that the current ice jam in the legislature is due to no more than 10-20% of the legislators.  But the merchants of doubt make sure they're in key positions.

2.  Some liars have lied so often, they believe their own lies.  Unless you know the facts, they would convince you too.  And they clearly have convinced enough of their constituents to get elected. 

That's the case of another character in Damages, Arthur Frobisher (played by Ted Danson).  He's a billionaire businessman who told all his employees to buy the company stock as he was selling his own, just before his company went bust.  Now they are Patty Hewes' clients as they try get their lives back.  Frobisher believes he's a good guy and he did nothing wrong.  His wiping out of his employees' retirement savings is just a blip on his screen.  Unfortunate.  He even tries to hire a ghost writer to tell his story to the world, because he's sure that if people just knew him, they would like him.  Possibly Madoff was a model for this character.  [I just checked and Wikipedia says that in season 3 Frobisher is based on the Madoff scandal.  We've only seen seasons one and two, but it was clear enough for me to make that connection already.][UPDATE 8:15pm:  Decided to start season 3 and it's not Frobisher, but a new character who's based on Madoff]

I suspect a lot of our worst lying legislators have convinced themselves they're good guys.  And they are so not.