Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskilll didn’t waste any time. As soon as we learned that current Attorney General and former Trump campaign advisor, Jeff Sessions, not only met privately with the Russian ambassador at the height of the Russian hacking exercise – a little gift, our intelligence agencies tell us, from Putin to Trump – but lied about it while under oath during his confirmation hearings, she did the right thing and called for his resignation. Get this straight: she didn’t just demand that he recuse himself from investigating his White House patron, but that he resign. Nor are McCaskill’s demands part of a fatuous partisan exercise. The Russian mess is serious and the implications for the Trump administration are potentially huge.

And even if it weren’t about possible collusion with a foreign power, there’s ample precedent to call for Session’s resignation. Perjury is a big deal. Republicans justified impeachment proceedings against President Clinton based on the claim that he lied to Congress while under oath. In 2013, the House Judiciary investigated AG Eric Holder based on claims that he lied under oath and, although they could not substantiate the claim, vociferously called for his resignation. Acting AG under Richard Nixon, Richard G. Kleindienst, was not only forced to resign, but was prosecuted for lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing.

So McCaskill’s not just whistling some partisan dixie. And, of course, she’s taking hate for standing up. Here’s what the spinning-like-a-top Missouri Republican Party has to say about the woman they hope to brand “Lyin’ Claire”:

Today Senator Claire McCaskill used her platform on Twitter in an attempt to discredit U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. The problem? Her tweet was a blatant lie that was exposed by her very own earlier tweets.

McCaskill claims she has been on the Armed Services Committee for 10 years and has never had a call or meeting with the Russian ambassador. Unfortunately, McCaskill’s earlier tweets say just the opposite: “Off to a meeting with Russian Ambassador…” and “Today calls with British, Russian, and German ambassadors re: Iran Deal.”

And indeed McCaskill did tweet that she met with the Russian Ambassador in 2013 – but not in her role on the Armed Services Committee – the rest of the tweet cited above that begins “Off to a meeting with Russian Ambassador” continues ” upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process.” McCaskill clarified the situation via twitter later. Her spokesperson elaborated:

McCaskill spokeswoman Sarah Feldman said McCaskill’s interactions with Kislyak were materially different than Sessions’. Sessions met with Kislyak one-on-one around the same time Russian actors are believed to have been meddling in the election. McCaskill, on the other hand, met him in a group setting to discuss adoption policy and in a brief phone call about the Iran nuclear deal, Feldman said.

Hardly in the same league as Jeff Sessions. Actually, given the full context, she wasn’t lying at all – despite an absurdly literal response on the part of Politifact. A group meeting with the Russian Ambassador on business other than that of the Armed Forces Committee does not undercut her implicit assertion that members of that committee – apart from Trump campaign surrogate Jeff Sessions – had little or no reason to have contact with the Russian ambassador. In fact, The Washington Post has confirmed that no other member of the committee met with the ambassador last year. Just Jeff Sessions. Who, under oath, denied that the meetings had taken place. Wonder why?

But hey, with Trump and his Russian buddies, his financial conflicts of interest, his strategically unavailable tax returns and, most recently, his bungled Yemen raid, Republicans have got a tough road to hoe when it comes to accountability – especially if they hope to make full use their idiot bill-signing machine to realize the Republican dream of killing New Deal America.

As Michael Tomasky observed about Sessions’ appointment to the AGs office, it was “corrupt for Trump to name him in the first place. It’s becoming clearer and clearer why Trump wanted an attorney general he could trust not to investigate him.” And if they’re not careful, the Republicans springing to Trump’s defense right now are going to be tarred with the same brush – so we can’t blame them for trying to do unto others first, can we? After all, as we have learned over the past eight years, it’s the Republican way.

The post McCaskill stands up to Sessions; GOP attempts smack-down appeared first on Occasional Planet.

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 71 percent of Americans report that they have had an alcoholic drink over the past year. That means that 29 percent have not. Another way of putting it is that over 75 million Americans have a particular skill or quality that would make them better Secret Service agents than many who currently are on the job.

After four Secret Service scandals over the past three years, it is time to reconsider which people are most fit to protect our president and other high-ranking officials. It is unacceptable to have this many Secret Service scandals, each of which involves drinking, partying, or lack of attention while on the job.

I remember going to college in Washington, DC and having a roommate who aspired to be a Secret Service agent. While I have not seen him in 45 years, I recall clearly the standards that were set for him, and perhaps more importantly, the standards that he set for himself. He was going to be a straight-arrow, someone who didn’t drink, didn’t smoke, didn’t womanize, and who wouldn’t do anything that in the conventional sense could be considered unpatriotic. I am confident that he has had a successful career in the Secret Service or another similar agency.

The fact that someone is a teetotaler or does not party does not ensure that he or she would be a good secret service agent, but it’s a good start. Today, when some secret service agents are either drinking and partying while on the job, or are just not alert enough to protect the president, we need to consider new standards to which a Secret Service applicant must conform. Perhaps this does not have to be permanent, but it might be necessary for a period of time, while the agency reshapes itself and brings back the integrity necessary for an agency with such a high level of responsibility.

Are we to believe that Secret Service agents are to be swashbucklers who are as well-armed as they are hard-partiers? If so, they mistake the key characteristic of the swashbuckler; the one who can come to the rescue and protect. In an era in which the entertainment industry projects most human heroes as people who ply their skills in a world of vice, then perhaps too many current Secret Service agents have a mistaken notion of what their jobs really entail. It does not include going to a Washington party and then recklessly driving back to the White House under the influence. It should be more like a common description of work for men and women in the military, on police forces, in the cockpits of planes, or a number of other extremely important jobs: “interminable boredom punctuated by moments of terror.”

I am growing a little tired of the president’s constant support for the Secret Service despite these scandals. Undoubtedly, he has loyalty to the good apples in the barrel, but the institution has a rotten core. As has been suggested by others, the Secret Service needs a new leader who comes from the outside. And when he or she gets around to revising standards for membership in the Service, he might want to place a special premium on teetotalers.

The post Is it too much to ask for a sober Secret Service? appeared first on Occasional Planet.