AP FACT CHECK: Trump defense misrepresents Mueller findings

How's your 409(k) doing?

Two days ago, BLOTUS boasted about growth in 409K's. Sure it was a typo and he meant 401(K), but he seems to be in mental decline, so lets compare Obama vs. Trump growth rates.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that the richest 1% own 50% of US stocks and to expand the view, the richest 10% own 84% of US stocks.
These facts don't stop garden variety broke-as-fuck trumpanzees from crowing about tRump's superior performance, so let's do the math.

Obama vs. Trump - first 35 months in office** The start/stop data are laid out down below, for those interested

Obama Dow +52.3% <<Clear advantage
Trump Dow +43.5%

Obama S&P 500 +54.2% <<Clear advantage
Trump S&P 500 +41.8%

Obama NASDAQ +80.7% <<Clear advantage
Trump NASDAQ +60.6%

There are 3 standard response you'll get from Trumpists.
1) No!, Fake News, or some such fact-averse push back. (I always challenge them to research it and try to debunk - they can't do it!)
2) Obama became POTUS during an economic downturn (Congrats for recognizing that Obama pulled us out of the 2nd Republican Great Depression - without help from R's)
3) Trump grew it by more points! (Upon which I direct them to the following article. Math=Hard)
https://finance.zacks.com/stock-market-points-vs-percent-6029.html

Percent Math

The designated number of points divided into the value of the underlying stock or index price produces a percentage change. If IBM is up 5 points from $100 per share, that means that it's up $5, and the stock gained 5 percent. If the S&P 500 is up 5 points from 1,420, the stock index gained 0.35 percent. Percentages of change are always calculated from the starting value. Using the percent change makes comparisons understandable. For example, if the Dow is up 130 points from a starting value of 13,180 for the day, and the S&P 500 has gained just 14 points from a starting point of 1,420, both stock indexes are up about 1 percent.

Forty years an outlaw, today I bought legal weed!

Supplies are limited here in Illinois, as it Cannabis was just legalized on January 1st. There have been lines as long as 4-5 hours and lots of products sold out.
Today I drove up and 20-minutes later drove off with 1g of Cresco Rocket Fuel (28.95% THC) and 20 gummies 50/50 CBD/THC.
Ideally, I would have bought 1/4oz or 1/8oz, but they've been rationing so nobody gets shut out.
My wife, who has never touched the stuff, is on board to try out the gummies this weekend.
I'm just about to light up my first bowl of the stuff, which smell so much better than the Midwest barn-weed that's oh-so common.

Sorry to geek out, but this is a big deal for a lot of Illinoisans, particularly those who are having convictions expunged.
This never would have happened under our former Repug Governor!

Reza Marashi weighs in on the absolute lunacy of Trumpco's approach toward Iran.

THREAD: Over the past few days, I've spoken extensively with career U.S. government officials as they've worked around the clock to try and mitigate the damage from Trump's ineptitude on Iran. With their permission, I'm sharing a small taste from our lengthy conversations. Enjoy.

"We have no functional national security decision-making process in place. We have no plan for what comes next. They are woefully unprepared for what's about to pop off, and they're too stupid to realize it. People here are freaking out, and rightfully so."

"We're still trying to dig out from underneath the last war of choice, and now they're trying to start a new one. I finally cracked open the bottle of scotch you gave me that I've been keeping stashed away in my desk drawer."

"I'm gonna call you later tonight to talk through this so I can go into meetings tomorrow armed with some sane talking points to insert into this clusterfuck."

"When did most of us find out about killing Soleimani? After it already happened. Since then, we've been trying to cobble together contingency planning on the fly, but these charlatans ignore most of it, and then Trump does more stupid shit that puts us back at square one."

"All Trump cares about is shitting on Obama's legacy, sucking up to donors, and distracting from impeachment. None of this is about American interests or security. He's surrounded by ideological lunatic sycophants like Pence and Pompeo. But they're far from the only ones."

"So many of Trump's top advisors on Iran are military vets who served multiple tours of duty in our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They believe to their core that Iran is the reason why they lost those wars, and they're dead set on payback - no matter what it takes."

"They've been pushing to kill Soleimani for years, and they finally baited Trump into it. They think war with Iran is long overdue, so for them, this was a means to an end. When Iran responds, they'll tell Trump to hit the Iranians harder. You see where this could go."

"They know the Iraqis are gonna kick them out now, so they're gonna try to kill as many as possible on their way out. Iranians, Iraqis, whoever. Some of them are advising Trump to tell the Iraqi government to fuck off and dare them to make us leave. I shit you not. Insanity."

"When I used your points about Soleimani's murder being a catalyst for Iranians to rally around the flag, they said that was 'Obama apologist bullshit,' and the Soviet Union forced people against their will into public displays of support. So apparently Iran is a superpower now."

"Trump is threatening war crimes against Iran, and none of his top advisors have the courage to publicly oppose it. Instead, they act like cowards and go on background with journalists to express their opposition. They should all resign. They don't deserve to serve this country."

"We have friends that are getting deployed into war zones, but for what? Trump has deployed 14,000 troops over the past 6 months, and it didn't prevent the current crisis. At what point do we start asking whether deploying troops is part of the problem rather than the solution?"

"The scariest part is that they're just making shit up to justify their preferred course of action. When we point out inaccuracies or question logic, we're at best yelled at or at worst cut out of the process. Most of the political appointees are paranoid, unqualified, or both."

"Last year, if you would've asked me whether American institutions are durable enough to prevent a Trump-led war with Iran, I would've said absolutely. Today, I'm not so sure. For as bad as it looks to you all on the outside, it's even worse when you see it from the inside."

"One of Trump's top Iran advisors got suckered into a honey trap, had their laptop/iPhone stolen and hacked before they woke up, and the White House refused to take precautionary measures regarding their security clearance. Ladies and gents, I give you the Trump administration."

In conclusion: Yes, folks. It really is that bad. I am but a humble messenger of truth. The voice of the voiceless. That is all. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Why is Trumpco trying so desperately to tie Iran to 9/11 and Al Qaeda? (Hint- AUMF)

File this under- "No one needs a war like a politician who's low in the polls."

It should come as no surprise that Trump wants to dangle a shiny object to distract us from all of the bad news flowing his way.
Impeachment, economic downturn, McGann may be testifying, etc. are weighing on his already sagging psyche, so why not start a war with Iran?
Trump gets a much needed distraction. Neocons win, defense contractors win, US oil companies win, Russia and Saudi Arabia win (It's been said Russian needs oil over $70/bbl and Saudi wants it nort of $85/bbl).

So what's the holdup?
Declaring war against Iran would require congressional approval, as the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) is only applicable to countries, groups and individuals involved, at least tangentially, in 9/11.

Here's an article published by Just Security in 2018, when Trumpco began stepping up their quest for an excuse to bomb Iran.
https://www.justsecurity.org/57338/trump-administration-claim-congress-authorized-force-iran-analysis-existing-statutory-authority-proposals/

In a policy speech at the Heritage Foundation last week, Secretary of State Pompeo set out a list of 12 grievances against Iran. While many involve desirable ends, they have rightly been critiqued as a “pipe dream” – a wish list divorced from any strategy, whose realization was made more wildly unrealistic after the U.S. abrogated its commitments and withdrew from the multilateral Iran nuclear deal (or JCPOA), creating another self-inflicted schism with our allies. It’s no secret that some of President Donald Trump’s most senior advisors, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, would prefer to address Iran’s nuclear program through regime change than by upholding a diplomatic solution that was working by all serious accounts. While stopping short of threatening war, Pompeo’s claim that the administration’s goal is to achieve a comprehensive agreement with Iran rings hollow. The real goal seems to be pressuring the regime to the point of collapse or goading Iran into breaking its nuclear commitments, “giving the United States and Israel an excuse for military action,” as Carol Giacomo explained. But one of Pompeo’s demands raises a different question: might the Trump administration also try to claim that military force against Iran is already authorized by Congress under the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) by arguing that the government in Tehran harbors al-Qa’ida (AQ)?

Pompeo’s list of demands included the following: “Iran too must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harboring senior al Qaeda leaders.” He argued that Iran “continues to serve as sanctuary for al-Qaeda, as it has done since 9/11, and remains unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaeda members residing in Tehran.” And he asked “the Iranian people” whether they want their country to be “known for… being a co-conspirator with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda?” Pompeo’s speech isn’t the first time we’ve heard this allegation from the administration. President Trump’s May 8thprepared remarks abandoning the JCPOA also included, in his opening paragraph, an allegation that Iran “supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.”

These statements clearly serve the Trump administration’s broader narrative about Iran and its support for terrorism. But could they also indicate an attempt to justify war on grounds beyond Iran’s nuclear program? If so, would the administration be able to make a serious claim that the 2001 AUMF authorizes a use of force against Iran on these grounds? What about under draft AUMF proposals introduced in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?