Go Big Or Go Home

In one of the (many) articles I wish I had written, Politico Magazine's Bill Scher argues

... if Mueller believes that Trump needs to be held accountable for any violation of law, he cannot expect Congress to do the accounting. There is only one mechanism that has any chance of working, and it is not impeachment. It's indictment.

He recognizes "impeachment is a dead end because the congressinal jury pool is tainted," now that the Special Counsel "has been systematically demonized for weeks by Trump and his allies." Further, if Democrats won every 2018 Senate race, they would still control only 58 seats, leaving them nine short of the 67 they would need to convict the President in the Senate. Thus

the more serious discussion to have is about indictment. Democrats and progressive activists need not get over their skis and call for an indictment before Mueller finishes his work, as he may welll declare that Trump has not committed any crimes.

On the assumption, however, that the Special Counsel will conclude that Donald Trump has committed one or more crimes, Scher summarizes the arguments for and against the notion that a incumbent President can be indicted.

Many pundits, lawyers or otherwise, hang their hat on the the 1973, and the 2000 concurring, memo from the Office of Legal Counsel arguing indictment of a sitting President would "interfere with the President's ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions and thus would be inconsistent with the constitutional structure."   However, one former head of the OLC maintains that a President can be indicted while in office and be tried after he/she leaves office.  And both the Watergate special counsel investigating President Nixon and a memo received by independent prosecutor Ken Starr argued that a sitting President can be prosecuted.

In that memorandum, law professor Richard Rotunda maintained "No federal  statutes recognize, or purport to recognize, any Presidential immunity from criminal indictment. Indeed, Congress has done quite the opposite: it has created an Independent Counsel statute for the express purpose of investigating alleged criminal activities of the President."  While the independent counsel has been replaced with a special counsel, Congress still has conspicuously chosen not to enact a statue "creating some sort of temporary immunity."

Nor is there a need to do so.  The notion that prosecution of a sitting President would render the nation rudderless flies in the face of reality- and of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which relegates to the Vice President (emphasis mine) the "powers and duties" of the President if the latter  unable to do so because he resigns, dies, or is unable to discharge those functions. Rotunda explains

Because·of this (i.e., 25th) Amendment, the temporary disability of the President does not incapacitate an entire branch of government because the Constitution itself recognizes the problems and deals with it in a structural way, not by creating an immunity but by providing for a temporary replacement. In addition, the indictment of the President does-not incapacitate either the President or entire Executive Branch. Aaron Burr was quite able to function as a Vice President although indicted. Indictment does not incapacitate the indicted individual. In the unlikely event that the defense of a civil case (e.g., Jones v. Clinton) or the defense of a criminal case would prevent the President from performing his duties, the Executive Branch does not simply shut down. The Twenty Fifth Amendment, § 3, provides a procedure for the Executive Branch to continue to function "[w]henever the President transmits . .. his written declaration that is unable to discharge the powel'S and duties of his office .... " This procedure is clearly not limited to cases of illness. 

One should also note that it is easy to make a claim that the Executive Branch will simply "shut down," but that claim is difficult to accept.

The only other constitutional duty of the Vice President is to preside over the Senate, which any dimwit can do. Nonetheless, the McCain-Palin ticket of 2008 was harmed by the widespread belief that the vice-presidential candidate was unqualified and unable to perform the duties of the President..

That has not been a common handicap to a presidential ticket, and Trump-Pence was no exception because- however awful a president he would be- Mike Pence is qualified for the office.  The notion that somehow the USA would be a hopeless basket case if President Trump is preoccupied with matters other than the presidency is laughable on its face.

No doubt Robert Mueller know, as Rotunda emphasizes,  that "the Constitution does not create an absolute Monarch above the law" and that "in this country, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the state that no one is above the law." If he is the stelllar public servant and patriot he is reputed to be, Mueller understands that confidence in civil institutions is at stake, The American people need to be assured (or convinced) that the powerful recognize that everyone is equal under the law and that this is a nation of laws and not of men.

Robertt Mueller will not be eager to look over his long career, including this long investigation, and conclude that all has gone to naught as Congress does little or nothing.  Therefore- as Bill Scher believes-

If by the end of the investigation, Meller concludes Trump has a (sic) committed a serious crime, he should recognize that he has only two real choices: Indict or go home.









Share |

When Fear Goes Both Ways

Ten months ago, the New York Times' Amanda Hess wrote "talk of 'snowflakes'" is "tough-guy posturing" which

revives the idea of a culturewide wussification that must be fought with a return to aggression, physicality and ego. This is what the insult argues for — a rough-and-tumble world in which raw power reigns and nobody ever asks for help or complains of ill treatment. This pose isn’t merely aesthetic: There are those who truly believe that set free from etiquette, care and cooperation, they would prevail over others. The alt-right has even picked up the word “anti-fragile” and whipped it into a political strategy — embracing chaos and conflict because they think they’re better suited to thrive in those conditions than weaker people are.

However, she recognizes,  "making an entire alternate masculine identity is a lot of work. It’s always much easier to just call other people wimps and snowflakes — and hope they’ll be intimidated enough to melt away."

Identification of the term (to a lesser extent, the concept) with the alt-right should not preclude suspicion that this tendency has infected Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg now that he has, Politico reports, announced

the magazine was “parting ways” with newly hired conservative writer Kevin Williamson after fresh evidence emerged that he had endorsed hanging women who get abortions.

Goldberg had initially defended hiring Williamson from National Review despite complaints about his previous writing, some of which critics said was racially insensitive or offensive to transgender people. Much of the criticism involved a 2014 tweet that suggested women who had abortions “should face capital punishment, namely hanging.”

On Wednesday, the liberal research group Media Matters unearthed a podcast in which Williamson expressed the same position.

“The language he used in this podcast — and in my conversations with [Williamson] in recent days — made it clear that the original tweet did, in fact, represent his carefully considered view,” Goldberg told staff in a Thursday memo.....

“We remain committed to grappling with complex moral issues in our journalism. Some of our colleagues are pro-life, and some are pro-choice; we have pro-death-penalty and anti-death-penalty writers; we have liberals and conservatives,” Goldberg wrote. “We obviously understood that Kevin himself is pro-life when we asked him to write for us. This is not about Kevin’s views on abortion.”

Williamson had in 2014 in both a tweet and a podcast suggested hanging as punishment for murder and

“The tweet was not merely an impulsive, decontextualized, heat-of-the-moment post, as Kevin had explained it,” Goldberg continued. “Furthermore, the language used in the podcast was callous and violent. This runs contrary to The Atlantic’s tradition of respectful, well-reasoned debate, and to the values of our workplace.

Many conservatives and most libertarians (being libertarians) will misinterpret Goldberg's decision,. Pro-life libertarian (also, pacifistic army, meat-eating vegetarians) Katherine Mangu-Ward imagines "The Atlantic is essentially declaring that it cannot stomach real, mainstream conservatism as it actually exists in 21st century America."  Jim Geraghty, columnist at Williamson's former and probably future employer, claims at National Review "Goldberg completely underestimated the level of liberal rage about the presence of an outspoken conservative in its pages."

However, The Atlantic is not required to fulfill a quota for conservatives, which conservatives and libertarians would be expected to understand. thus, the decision would be more justifiable if  Williamson actually was dismissed because of his perspective on abortion. However, the Daily Beast suggested otherwise:

The top editor emphasized that Williamson’s firing was not a result of his being anti-abortion—a common position for deeply religious Americans of all political stripes—but because of how his especially violent belief conflicts with the “values of our workplace."

 One understated twitterer noted 

It appears Goldberg's concern that Kevin Williamson's abortion opinions would offend female staffers significantly motivated the firing. Possibly in a "workplace harassment" sense, which seems, uh, worrisome.

If there is any indication that any woman has been harrassed by Williamson in his professional career, Goldberg's presumed concern would be well-placed. Evidently, however, there is none, for none has emerged.

Williamson did not expect to be in on the hanging even if abortion is prohibited, execution is deemed the maximum penalty, one or more of the women illegally has an abortion, and he became aware of it.

If Williamson was dismissed because his presence on the staff merely would have discomfited the women, Goldberg is exhibiting what Hess recognizes in the many ultra-conservatives who are "hypersensitive to dissent or complication."  Exquisitely sensitive, he would be displaying attributes of a snowflake.

He also would be short-sighted. There is a reason that, in social and in conventional media, there has been nary a word of support among his supporters for Williamson's openness to execution.

It is a viewpoint that is embarrassing to pro-forced birth advocates, who do not want to be associated with any penalty, however slight, for what it nonetheless considers "murder."  Support for their position depends on maintaining the fiction that doctors scour the landscape for emotionally fragile women whom they can coerce into forking over money to them so that they may destroy human life.

The pro-life crowd considers women to be a delicate, emotionally weak form of the species.  If Kevin Williamson has been dismissed because of the fears of women who were his professional colleagues, the right has been given more cause for its troglodytic prejudices.









Share |

When "Murder" Is Not Even A Misedemeanor

National Review columnist Kevin Williamson, recently hired by The Atlantic, has taken a nearly unique view on an enduring public policy question, stating that he is partial to the notion of hanging women who have illegal abortions.  Media Matters For America found a National Review podcast from 2014 in which he was co-host and remarked

And someone challenged me on my views on abortion, saying, “If you really thought it was a crime you would support things like life in prison, no parole, for treating it as a homicide.” And I do support that, in fact, as I wrote, what I had in mind was hanging.

My broader point here is, of course, that I am a -- as you know I’m kind of squishy on capital punishment in general -- but that I’m absolutely willing to see abortion treated like a regular homicide under the criminal code, sure.

This has caused quite a bit of consternation, such as from a disapproving Media Matters, which nevertheless concedes "Notably, although Williamson did hedge saying that he was 'kind of squishy on capital punishment in general' he was 'absolutely willing to see abortion treated like regular homicide under the criminal code.'” Steve M, himself, acknowledging Williamson admitted it would "be 150 years before this happens," snarked "but whenever society has the gallows ready, he's there for it. No walkback."

And of course those who oppose abortion rights, who have the most to lose if this reasoning takes hold, are opposed.  Charles W. Cooke, Williamson's co-host on the podcast, argued

Before we get on to the disagreement between us on this issue, it's worth saying that the presumption that you cannot believe something to be murder unless you agree with whatever response to that crime your interlocutor is proposing is ridiculous. [Williamson replies, "Sure."] The reality is that you can simultaneously believe that a crime is murder and that the person should be hanged or that the person should be put in prison for ten years or that the person should be not put in prison at all but rehabilitated by their family or that the person should go to a mental institution or that the person should be sent to Australia or exiled onto an island just off civilization's coast. You can believe all of these things.

Cooke does not have to believe in whatever his interlocutor is recommending as punishment for an illegal abortion in order for him to believe it is "murder."

First off, there is disingenuousness in referring- as Cooke does later in the video below- to abortion as "murder." It is killing but not murder until it is prohibited, and were that its status, pro-life advocates understandably would not be exorcised about it.

Lexicon aside, however, Cooke does not have to believe in whatever is  recommended as punishment for the procedure in order for him to believe it is killing.  He does not have to support execution for each and every woman who successfully pursues an illegal abortion. But consider his suggestion that a person who commits what he considers "murder" could

be put in prison for ten yeas or that the person should be not put in prison at all but rehabilitated by their family or that the person should go to a mental institution or that the person should be ent to Australia or exiled onto an island just off civilizations's coast.

He said that. The state's response to a woman who seeks, pays for, and obtains a "murder" can possibly be.... rehabilitated by their family.

This is not a slap on the wrist. This is less than a slap on the wrist and not even a penalty for what Cooke believes is- and under his scenario, the law would consider- a murder. Surely, even if capital punishment were the maximum penalty for obtaining an abortion, it rarely if ever would be applied.  In 2017 there were 23 executions in the entire nation. It is unlikely, then, that there would be even one execution in any one year. If there were, it would suggest that abortion- with execution even remotely possible- remained extremely common, implying a public acceptance of the procedure which would justify removing the ban.

By far the most commonly stated reason, as it is for Cooke, for supporting forced-birth laws is the belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. One does not, or at least should not, automatically deny prosecutors by law the option of pursuing the death penalty for the wanton, premeditated taking of a life.  If an ardent foe (as Cooke is) of abortion legalization wishes to take that punishment off the table, he cannot logically believe abortion is killing.

Alternatively, the pro-life person may believe that murder can be punished by, oh, releasing the murderer to her family. Yet, this is never suggested as the punishment for the doctor who performs the abortion as requested, for he or she must be treated as a dastardly criminal.

When in 2016 Donald Trump told Chris Matthews "there must be some form of punishment" for women who get an abortion if it is banned, he backtracked within hours with not one, but two, statements, perhaps to leave no doubt that he really didn't believe a murderer should be penalized.  He argued in the latter instance that not only should the health practitioner be punished but even that "the woman is the victim in this case."

He had to reassure conservatives that he was in on the game. In on the game that they must simultaneously pretend that abortion  takes a human life and that the primary culprit is not the perpetrator, but the victim.

Delivered in March, 2016, the statements came not during the general election campaign, in which voters are nearly even split on the issue of abortion, but during the primary election campaign, in which voters (overwhelmingly Republican) are presumed anti-abortion. Trump did not have to appeal at that time to voters of all ideological stripes; he had to reassure conservatives, who completely dominate GOP primaries.

Considering a woman the victim when she makes a carefully considered decision obviously denies her agency, presuming that she is an easily manipulated child rather than a thinking, responsible adult.  But that is a small price to pay, the calculation goes, for maintaining an intellectual incoherence endearing to opponents of abortion rights.




Share |

Less Than Total Victory

On March 31, Robert Reich had a good- but for him, disappointing- take on the controversy in which

Last Wednesday morning, Laura Ingraham, Fox News’s queen of snark, tweeted that David Hogg – a 17-year-old who survived the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, and has been among the eloquent advocates for gun control – “whines about” being rejected by four universities he applied to. She linked to an article from the Daily Wire calling him a “gun rights provocateur.”

Shortly after Ingraham’s attack on Hogg, he called for Ingraham’s advertisers to boycott the show. Within days, a slew of them did just that.

As advertisers peeled off, Ingraham tried to take back her comment, saying the “spirit of Holy Week” motivated her to apologize for “any upset or hurt” she might have caused Hogg “or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

Hogg rejected the apology. “She only apologized after we went after advertisers,” he told The New York Times. He then tweeted to Ingraham that he’d accept her apology “if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I in this fight. It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.”

If truth be told, Hogg, while pursuing a righteous cause, at least confirmed Ingraham's charge that the young man is a whiner. She did not "mudsling at children"- she threw mud at an individual (an eloquent, mature individual) who chose to engage vigorously in the political arena.  Still, as Reich would undoubtedly agree, any day without Laura Ingraham is a day with sunshine. He recognizes

 ....corporations have to keep their consumers content all the time.

Selling satisfactory products and services is necessary but often not sufficient. Customers also want to feel good about the brands they’re buying. At the least, they don’t want to associate themselves with mean-spirited vitriol. 

Liberty Mutual, the giant insurer, called Ingraham’s comments “inconsistent with our values as a company, especially when it comes to treating others with dignity and respect.” Nutrish, a pet food brand, said Ingraham’s comments “are not consistent with how we feel people should be treated.” TripAdvisor explained that Ingraham’s comments “cross the line of decency.” 

Such explanations sound as if these companies chose to drop Ingraham’s show in order to be socially responsible. In truth, they’re just being smart at doing what they’re set up to do – make money. When it comes to consumer products, cruelty doesn’t sell.

Reich realizes "companies aren't being socially responsible" when they "have quickly ended commercial relationships with famous people acccused of sexual harassment and abuse," but instead "don't want to sully their brands." He argues, convincingly, that

Companies are spending huge amounts seeking to connect their goods to consumers’ values. They know more about those values than anyone. Which suggests that Americans may have had enough cruelty – coming from Laura Ingraham, from Fox News, from Donald Trump, from the Harvey Weinsteins of the land, from whomever. 

Many companies, especially Liberty Mutual- which does not market to the Trumpian demographic- will exhibit a social conscience. However, others may discover that their consumers' values don't align with those of Liberty Mutual, Robert Reich, David Hogg, or myself, but instead those espoused by Donald Trump. These individuals do not define cruelty as antagonism toward minorities, gays, or even young liberals. 









The left may observe that it is being hoisted by its own petard if= more likely, when- conservatives decide to play by the same rules. Admittedly, abstaining from consumer boycotts like the one initiated by Hogg are unlikely to deter the right from using the same tactics it disgracefully and successfully applied against the Dixie Chicks. Still, the left should be (as is Reich) restrained in its glee.

We cannot be anywhere near certain, for instance, that after a brief absence, Ingraham's advertisers don't return. Further, there should also be a more abstract, global, and potentially more dangerous concern about going down this road. This boycott and others are begun by persons conscientously dedicated to an ideological viewpoint. However, ultimately, the sanctions are implemented by corporations, which means that corporations are playing the major role in determining what voices are silenced.

Today it is Laura Ingraham's on the right. Tomorrow it may be someone on the left, more tolerant and compassionate, even less vitriolic.  Arguably, that is the free market of ideas, and a  net gain. However, voluntarily turning more power or influence over to major corporations comes with a whole lot of dangers, now unforeseen but potentially perilous.




Share |

Trump's Guy

Of course they did.

NEW: President Trump called Administrator Pruitt last night and said "Keep your head up, keep fighting. We have your back," per administration official.

COS Kelly called Pruitt this morning and reiterated POTUS' message.

— Jacqueline Alemany (@JaxAlemany) April 3, 2018

TIME last week had reported

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency paid just $50 a night to stay in a Capitol Hill condominium linked to a prominent Washington lobbyist whose firm represents a roster of fossil fuel companies.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt paid for a single bedroom in the building on a leafy street about a block from the U.S. Capitol, staying for about six months in 2017 during nights he was in Washington. Records show three units inside the building are listed as belonging to a corporation co-owned by the wife of J. Steven Hart, the chairman and CEO of the powerhouse lobbying firm Williams and Jensen PLLC.

The firm’s clients include Exxon Mobil Corp. and the major liquefied natural gas exporter Cheniere Energy Inc. — companies that have billions at stake in regulatory decisions over which Pruitt presides. Records show in at least one case Pruitt met in his EPA office with a lobbyist from Hart’s firm while he was renting the room.

Justina Fugh, an ethics lawyer at EPA, told The Associated Press on Friday Pruitt’s rental agreement allowed him to only pay for nights he occupied the room, totaling about $6,000 in payments over the term of the lease.

Now we learn that in early March, Pruitt requested a salary increase for two aides he had brought from Oklahoma: Sarah Greenwalt, from $107,435 to $164,200; and Millan Hupp, from $86,460 to $114,590. However, he needed approval from the White House because they were political appointees, and the Presidential Personnel Office dismissed the application and the White House refused to overrule it.

But now Pruitt has approved the 53% and the 33% raises because, The Atlantic explains

A provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act allows the EPA administrator to hire up to 30 people into the agency, without White House or congressional approval. The provision, meant to help expedite the hiring of experts and allow for more flexible staffing, became law in 1996. In past administrations, it has been used to hire specialists into custom-made roles in especially stressed offices, according to Bob Perciasepe, a former acting EPA administrator.

These aren't Pruitt's only indiscretions. Vox's Umair Irfan notes that the Administrator spent $168,000 of taxpayer funds on air travel- additional for first-class hotels- in his first year in office, traveling with his entourage for media appearances and recreation, as well as for legitimate EPA business.  He spent $3,000 to sweep his office for survellance bugs, $2,000 for biometric locks with fingerprint readers, and $42,000 to build a phone booth in his office. Maxwell Smart would have been proud.





Pruitt flies charter- often- to and from Oklahoma, where as Attorney General he sued the EPA 13 times and often sent (under his own signature) the EPA, Interior, and President Obama letters written by the energy industry.

That made him the ideal appointee to head Donald Trump's EPA.   And as Administrator, he "continues to run the score up for Trump," pursing Trump's agenda of shoving as much money to corporations, especially the fossil fuel industry, as possible.

Although this probably is the primary reason he isn't fired by the President- or, rather, by Chief of Staff Kelly because Trump can't fire anyone in person- there may be another factor at work. In this Administration, no one can sneeze without hitting ethically deficient members. The latter include at least Jeff Sessions (probably least of all), Treasury's Mnuchin, HUD's Carson, Interior's Zinke, Education's DeVos, Ambassador Haley, Ivanka Trump, and Kellyanne Conway. (Jared Kushner, probably collaborating with a foreign power, is a whole different kettle of fish.) "An inner circle unburdened by legal or moral scruples," Jonathan Chait observes, "are the only kind of people who want to work for Trump, and the only kind Trump wants to wrok for him."

But Scott Pruitt stands out. Perhaps it's the extent of his corruption. Or mFaybe it's because he's so sensitive that he flies first class to avoid critics, revealing a snowflake (with regrets at using a term popularized by the alternative right) like Donald Trump. He's a guy who skirts the rules (as with the recent pay raises) or breaks the rules and he's still riding high, still a winner. He's a lot like the boss.

Share |

Black Lives Matter- Sometimes

A forty-three-year-old black mother, Crystal Mason of Tarrant County, Texas, has been sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud, though her attorney now has filed an appeal. BET explains she

was on supervised release for tax fraud after serving nearly three years in federal prison. While she was on her release, her mother insisted she exercise her civic duty of voting in the crucial election, the Star-Telegram reported.

However, Mason was unaware that convicted felons are not allowed to register to vote in Texas, and voting their rights can be restored only after the sentence, including a supervised release, has been completed.

When Mason arrived at her polling place, the workers could not find her name on the list of registered voters, so a poll worker handed her a provisional ballot.

The poll worker gave Mason an affidavit listing the conditions required to vote. Mason signed the document and voted.

A poll worker later reported problems with Mason’s ballot which prompted an investigation, the district attorney's office spokesperson Samantha Jordan told the Dallas Morning News.

Mason, who was originally served time for a 2011 conviction for inflating returns, said she has “owned up” to her crime and she would never intentionally put herself in a position to go back to jail.

"I inflated returns," Mason told the Telegram. "I was trying to get more money back for my clients. I admitted that. I owned up to that. I took accountability for that. I would never do that again. I was happy enough to come home and see my daughter graduate. My son is about to graduate. Why would I jeopardize that? Not to vote. ... I didn't even want to go vote."

As BET notes, several people, including but not limited to a superb news host and the president of the NAACP, tweeted about Mason, in some instances drawing a contrast to a white Republican woman sentenced to probation for trying to vote twice for Donald Trump in Iowa.

But one organization is glaringly absent from the individuals and groups righteously outraged at this effort to depress voting and imprison someone up for something relatively innocuous.

That would be Black Lives Matter, the first page of whose website includes

The Black Lives Matter Global Network is a chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission is to build local power and to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

Apparently, the Network does not want to interfere with the "violence" or discrimination inflicted by the state of Texas. It continues

We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

Evidently, their network does not center on blacks whose votes are being suppressed. Their rant continues

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

The oppression they affirm does not include oppression of the right to cast a ballot.

Despite President Trump finally shutting down Kris Kobach's fraudulent voter fraud commission, GOP efforts to abort voting rights continues, and would be a concern to any organization truly dedicated to black empowerment.

So, too, would unusually punitive criminal justice practices in specific states. As with much of the effort among politicians and others toward criminal justice reform, among politicians and others, Black Lives Matter seems blissfully unaware that not all states, unlike people, are created equal. Both law enforcement and courts vary from state-to-state, and it is no coincidence that Crystal Mason was abused in Texas (video from 1/23/17).




Inarguably, black lives matter. Arguably, Black Lives Matter shouldn't.




Share |

Journey Interrupted

Last week, amidst pushback from Chris Hayes, CBN Chief Political Correspondent David Brody differentiated Donald Trump from former President Bill Clinton because the latter

had a Monica Lewinsky. Right now we don't see a Monica Lewinsky in the Donald Trump White House. If that happened, Chris, game, set, match. It's over for Donald Trump with evangelicals....

Because evangelicals at that point, just like any constituency, would feel played at that point. He's promoting Judeo-Christtan values but then doing something you know, against that in the year now. That would be a real issue for them. But once again, we don't see that. And in the book, I can tell you that he has so many evangelicals around hm right now from a  spiritual pespective that the sense is from our reporting over 100 interviews he is on a  spiritual journey that has evolved. And last year, if you remember, chris, you're talking about 10, 12 years ago. We haven't seen anything in the last few years. 

Clearly, Donald Trump would have to be photographed laying naked on the desk in the Oval Office (there is room, evidently) with a naked Hope Hicks for right-wing evangelicals to "feel played."

Because they are silent today.They are silent one day after the President innocously tweeted "Happy Easter" and then in the course of two hours, set off three tweets competing against each other for deceit and animosity.

Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. “Caravans” coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 1, 2018

Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 1, 2018

These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 1, 2018

 He was eager to make the symbolism even more obvious when on his way into church

"Mexico has got to help us at the border. And a lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of DACA," Pres. Trump told reporters after tweeting early Sunday that he would no longer support a deal on fixing DACA https://t.co/bq1i3wMsex pic.twitter.com/3NjyeyI0tQ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 1, 2018

No one has identified "caravans" and given the presence of tunnels, "our dumb immigration laws" are not the reason for "drug flows." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offered to support substantial wall funding in return for legalization for DACA recipients. "Catch and release" was never a law, and President Trump himself has claimed credit for ending it.

Other than that, Trump's tweets were largely accurate.  But the stunning- were it not coming from Donald J. Trump- aspect is that they came on Easter Sunday, from the guy we're assured "is on a spiritual journey that has evolved."  We haven't seen anything in the sexual realm from Trump in the last few years- but otherwise we have seen plenty and did so yesterday, on the holiest day for Christians.

It is the holiest day- or at least worthy of a little respect- from anyone who genuinely "is on a spiritual journey" It would not have served as an excuse for both dishonest and mean-spirited messages to the American people.

President Trump is on no spiritual journey, but is on a journey to determine how outrageously contemptuous he can be of evangelicals before the right-wing among them are willing to concede they are being played.  They are, of course, eager to be used and continue to shill for President Trump. Impressingly shrewd, the man has found an audience which prioritizes conservative politics over preaching the gospel, typically prioritizing things that are on earth rather than on those which are above.

Share |