God And Country At Liberty

Commenting on a catapault system, known as Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, on a new aircraft carrier, President Trum told TIME Magazine

I said, “You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?” “No sir.” I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”

It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, “What system are you going to be—” “Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said, “No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”

It was unsurprising that the goddamned steam man who has conceded "I am not sure I have ever asked God for forgiveness because "I don't bring God into that picture" was heard two days later delivering the commencement address at the college founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Virginia.

It was unsurprising because current Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr. was an early and staunch supporter of Mr. Trump and remains one of his most important boosters.  The man who once condescendingly remarked "when I drink my little wine... and have my little cracker" was heard assuring graduates "in America we don't worship government, we worship God."

But an individual should not be judged upon his or her religious beliefs, and clearly evangelical voters- most of whom support Trump- have proven his lack of faith is irrelevant to them.

Nonetheless, the individual who has demonstrated that he would sell out his country for 30 pieces of silver (actually, he demands much more) stated also in his commencement address

I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth, will be a warrior for our country, and for your family. I know that each of you will do what is right, not what is the easy way, and that you will be true to yourself, and your country, and your beliefs.








Religious hypocrisy is not uncommon, a sin many of us have fallen prey to at one time or another. Nonetheless, when the politician who ran to "Make America Great Again"- implying thereby America is not great- and has described the country as one beset by "carnage" emphasizes patriotism in public, we must cry "foul." Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald reported last September

A company controlled by Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, secretly conducted business in Communist Cuba during Fidel Castro’s presidency despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings.

Documents show that the Trump company spent a minimum of $68,000 for its 1998 foray into  Cuba at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval. But the company did not spend the money directly. Instead, with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm called Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp. Once the business consultants traveled to the island and incurred the expenses for the venture, Seven Arrows instructed senior officers with Trump’s company—then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts—how to make it appear legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.





It's not Russia but Cuba, a far less important nation, but still a reminder that God and country have never been much of a concern of the man we call "President."












Share |

Will He Or Won't He?

On Saturday morning, David Frum issued a series of clever tweets, each beginning with "this isn't remotely like Watergate."

One follows with "during Watergate, Congress cared whether laws had been broken;" another, "along with his flaws and demons, Nixon has many fine qualities of instinct and character." Still another reads "Watergate arose from domestic espionage."

Less controversial but arguably more intriguing, Frum tweets "This isn't remotely like Watergate. During Watergate, honorable people in government resigned rather than be associated with improper acts."

Cyrus Vance (sadly) is dead. People will not resign rather than be associated with improper acts.   The most obvious candidate was Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote to Jeff Sessions a memorandum in which he argued that FBI Director James Comey had supplanted the authority of the Attorney General's office by himself determining whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

After President Trump fired Comey and attributed the decision to Reosenstein's letter, the Deputy Attorney General was miffed. Consequently, the President then conceded he had decided to dismiss the FBI director well before he received the recommendation.

Rosenstein reportedly was displeased he had been used by the President, as if Donald Trump hadn't spent a lifetime using people. But the guy offended at being blindsided had concluded his memo

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

You  don't need an IQ in the triple digits to recognize that as a recommendation to sack someone who "cannot be expected to  implement the necessary corrective actions."

Rosenstein still could resign, but the betting is he won't.  Appearing Saturday morning with Michael Smerconish, Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Del Quentin Wilber stated that- notwithstanding some speculation- he believes Rosenstein won't resign because he likes his job.

Though unlikely Rosenstein will quit, there still is a chance for James Comey. Not to resign, of course, because he already has been removed- but to come clean.

Donald Trump says "I believe" Comey requested to dine with the President, precipitating the dinner of January 27; former DNI director Clapper says the request came from the President.

President Trump maintains that on three occasions, including once at the White House dinner, he asked Comey whether he was under investigation and each time was told that he was not.  Comey's camp is saying the then-FBI director never would have answered such a question.

Comey's associates say their guy was asked by Trump at the meal to pledge his loyalty to the President. Comey, they maintain, "declined, instead offering to be 'honest.' When Trump then pressed for 'honest loyalty,' Comey told him, 'You will have that.'" Assistant Presidential Press Secretary Sanders denies that occurred.  (She also charged Comey "lost the confidence" of "rank-and-file" FBI employees.)






Trump has accused James Comey of asking for the dinner and assuring him he is not under investigation, and denies he requested a pledge of loyalty from the FBI director. And he has fired him, calling Comey a "showboat" and "grandstander," then tweeted he "better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!"

Whether that's a threat, a warning, or Trump just impulsively acting out his anger, he has thrown down the gauntlet.  But Comey has declined a request to testify next Tuesday before a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The litmus test is whether the former director ends up testifying in open session, as is speculated he'd rather do. Assuming what the Comey camp says is accurate (given that Trump is claiming the reverse, it very likely is), Comey would demonstrate an utter lack of self-respect if he simply walks away keeping everything to himself.

Fortunately, he'll probably step up, as he must.  The jury is still out on James Comey, a subject of controversy in the Trump/Russia/election scandal since its inception. Not everyone gets a second chance, but he now has an opportunity to show the pride and self-respect evidently lacking in Rod Rosenstein.











Share |

Don't Ignore The Elephant

Politico staff writer Michael Kruse believes he has found the prescription needed in the form of Cheri Bustos, who

wasn’t the sole member of her party to win in a congressional district Donald Trump also took—there were 11 others—but she was the only one to post a 20-point landslide, and she did it in agricultural, industrial, blue-collar northwestern Illinois.

He explains

This is a moment, of course, of existential angst for Democrats. They’re unified mainly by their antipathy toward Trump. Beyond that, they’re grappling with the much more complicated calculus of whether to focus on stoking the Trump-hating base or re-embrace a more moderate approach and earn back the votes of traditional Democrats they’ve leached practically everywhere but cities and the coasts. Ben Ray Lujan, the New Mexico congressman who heads the DCCC, is clear about where he stands on this. “I can assure you,” he said when we talked last week, “that the direction I’m giving is that we need to go back and re-establish trust and earn trust with people all over the country, including rural and blue-collar Americans.”

California Democratic Party activist David Atkins also ponders the electoral weakness of  the Democratic  Party, arguing that Hillary Clinton and others are losing elections because they fail to  recognize, as Bernie Sanders has, that

the obscenely wealthy, especially on Wall Street, have profited hugely by outsourcing and automating the jobs of regular Americans. Liberals and progressives will fight to bring those jobs back wherever possible–and if the fat cats in the private sector won’t cooperate, then we’ll invest in infrastructure and green energy work that not only provide jobs directly, but stimulate the private sector around them. Immigrants and poor minorities aren’t taking your jobs or tax dollars–the hedge fund manager is.

Their ideas are similar, with Atkins concluding "The argument is done. The future belongs to economic populism if liberal parties want to win again" while Kruse embraces candidates like Bustos who are "assiduous in talking about jobs, agriculture and infrastructure while steering clear of the flashpoint social issues."

There is a difference, however, and if you have time to read only one essay, read Atkins and steer clear of the more superficial Kruse, who brings us yet one more lecture about listening to rural voters, who possess wisdom people living on the coasts are unable  to imagine. Correction: with or without the time, read Atkins, ignore Kruse.

Yet, the two have in common an approach common to those offering their wisdom to a Party which has increasingly emphasized some issues over those economic issues Atkins has been promoting for years.

Though with more substance than Kruse, they have avoided mentioning the elephant in the room. After agreeing in a March, 2016  Democratic primary debate that as President she would not deport "children" or "family members," Hillary Clinton- the less progressive of the two candidates- was asked whether she would "deport immigrants who don't have a criminal record." She responded "that's what I'm telling you," a few moments before Bernie Sanders agreed that "I would not do that" (deport anyone but criminals).

I am not making that up.

Mrs. Clinton, long viewed as an ardent advocate of womens' rights, was challenged during the campaign by Bernie Sanders, determined to demonstrate that he is equally supportive of what sometimes is referred to as "women's issues."  And Clinton and Sanders vied with each other as to whom is now more supportive of gay rights.

In a tweet from July found  on her website, Clinton neatly encapsulated the thrust of her ideological commitment, which reflects that of the base of her Party and of the vast majority of national Democratic politicians:

People are crying out for criminal justice reform. Families are being torn apart by excessive incarceration. Young people are being threatened and humiliated by racial profiling. Children are growing up in homes shattered by prison and poverty. They’re trying to tell us. We need to listen. 

In one short statement, Clinton hit several of the Party's sweet spots: criminal justice reform (good); excessive incarceration (bad); racial profiling (bad); children (good); prison (bad).  (She added poverty, and good for her. Few Democrats mention that, especially after the demise of John Edwards.)

The individuals panning the current state and strategic emphasis of the Democratic Party are decrying "identity politics," whether they choose to use the term or not, the latter as in the case of Kruse and Atkins. Neverthelesss, most refuse to mention immigrants, racial discrimination, mass incarceration,, or "marriage equality," even though they are the issues most approximating litmus tests for modern Democrats.

The debate over the future of  the Democratic Party, to which Atkins has constructively contributed, will go on, inevitably so. But let's be honest. Although the Party will not abandon its support for gays, blacks, immigrants, and women, emphasizing other matters requires a de-emphasis on those issues which currently dominate its politics.  It may or may not be the proper approach, but that elephant isn't going away simply because we avert our eyes.












Share |

Whatever You Say, Don

Forget Politico, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, ABC News,the Hill, or others, all of which had a guy or gal covering the town hall meeting of Representative Tom MacArthur, Republican of New Jersey.

There as a constituent, I can assure you there is no more objective, accurate, and thorough report of the event than that of Jim Newell of Slate, who cogently summarized

MacArthur fielded many fair, brutal questions throughout the night, between the insults or extended speeches. (Some residents came prepared with elaborate statements, noting the many cameras in the room.) Most of the questions, appropriately, were about health care, with a healthy dose of Russia thrown in the mix. MacArthur didn’t have much to say about President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, instead just saying that he hoped the House and Senate intelligence committees could resolve their investigations soon. When asked whether it was time for a special prosecutor, he said, “No, not yet,” to a chorus of boos. But it was a health care night.

And so it was. Still, for my money the best question came from a local named Arnold Burnett (ph.), who began (at nearly the end of the video below, less than halfway in to the meeting) by talking about Donald Trump's tax returns and continued with

You voted seven times to block Congress from forcinghim to relese his tax returns and you refused to sign a letter signed by many of your colleagues requiring him to release his tax returns. Why had you not demanded that Trump release the returns, especially in light of his connections to Russia and why would you not co-sponsor the Presidential Transparency Act (HR 305) that would require Trump to make his tax returns public?

MacArthur responded

You''ve heard this before- you said you were in Waretown (the site of an earlier MacArthur town hall meeting, at the other end of his district),  I do believe the President should release his tax returns. He said he would numerous times; I think he should.

An attendee helpfully yelled out "why did you vote against it," to which the "moderate" (as heralded throughout the traditional media) replied "because I don't think it's Congress' role to force that." After a few moments of silence other than random shouts, he added "that's my answer."







Of course, MacArthur believes the President "should" release his tax returns. It's the easy and safe position, representing as he does a swing district. The "swingers" (politically, that is) will agree with him that it would be nice for the returns to come out.  Trump supporters- practically every Republican- won't hold it against him when he actually is doing his bit to block Congress from requiring it.

Trump's continued overwhelming support from Republicans thus is at the root of the unwillingness to impose reasoned behavior from the President. GOP members of Congress- including MacArthur, with the American Health Care Act- have enabled the President to continue on his not-so-merry way. They have little or nothing to fear from their popular base.

And so few Republicans have openly acknowledged the disaster unfolding before their eyes and will not confront the ever-enveloping evil. Tom MacArthurr represents the rare moderate congressional district held by a  Republican. By getting him to admit "I don't think it's Congress' role to force that," one voter in New Jersey (with help from another) forced one congressman to admit that there is practically nothing for which he will stand up to  the twittering President.







Share |

A Question Of Timing

It is uncertain as to why Donald J. Trump fired James Comey and/or chose to do so Tuesday. Michelle Goldberg believes it may be because, as CNN finds, federal prosecutors only recently have begun issuing grand jury subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn, and that these "represent the first sign of a significant escalation of activity in the FBI's broader investigation begun last July into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia."

Matt Yglesias, noting that Trump has consorted with La Cosa Nostra, been involved with money laundering at his casinos, unethically avoided sales taxes with an "empty box" tax evasion scheme, and played fast and loose with the Trump Foundation, argues

An FBI inquiry that started with a hard look at Trump associates’ possible ties to the Russian government could easily have turned up some totally unrelated criminal misconduct. By the same token, it’s entirely possible that whatever it is Trump might be covering up by refusing to release his tax returns has nothing to do with Russian bribes or blackmail.

But what we know from the tax return saga is that Trump appears to be covering something up.

Additionally, the previous day's testimony by Sally Yates, which emphasized that White House counsel was aware that Flynn could be easily blackmailed by the Kremlin, was widely praised.

But we do know at least one thing for certain: the GOP line implying that Democrats are hypocrites for now decrying the dismissal of the FBI director is grossly exaggerated.

President Trump on Tuesday night tweeted "Cryin' Chuck Schumer stated recently 'I don't have confidence in him (James Comey) any longer.' Then acts so indignant." Displaying impressive independence of thought, Texas Senator John Cornyn chimed in with "Ds wee against Comey before they were for him."

Senator Cornyn failed to specify any Democrats who advocated that James Comey be fired. (But then, if Republicans lived in the world of facts, they would be, well, Democrats.)  Trump at least criticized a particular Democrat, though it turned out even Minority Leader Schumer did not recommend the Director be sacked. Bloomberg reported

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” said the New York Democrat, who has criticized as “appalling” Comey’s decision to send a letter to lawmakers 11 days before the election disclosing the bureau’s new review of e-mails potentially pertinent to the investigation of Clinton’s private server.

“To restore my faith, I am going to have to sit down and talk to him and get an explanation for why he did this,” Schumer said in an interview.

Schumer noted that he had previously lauded Comey for disputing contentions by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys were performance-related. Comey, who had previously served as deputy attorney general during George W. Bush’s administration, praised the prosecutors’ performance before a congressional panel.

“He had huge courage,” said Schumer, who also recalled rallying his Senate colleagues to support Comey’s confirmation as FBI director.

Schumer lauded Comey for his "courage" and stated that he could not regain confidence in him until and unless he talked to the FBI director. He did not urge that the President of the United States get rid of him.

And more  relevantly: the Bloomberg piece was dated November 2, 2016, more than six months ago- or as Donald Trump puts it, "recently." A lot has transpired since then, including Comey's March testimony confirming an investigation by the FBI into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.






And yet, television's talking heads (see Brokaw, Tom) have been talking up the disingenuous, GOP-driven line that Democrats have been consistently criticizing Comey and need to be more circumspect and moderate.

Similarly, it's unhelpful to label Donald Trump as a hypocrite.  He is the ultimae Teflon Man and to demean Donald Trump as a hypocrite is about as important as charging Bashir Assad with watching too much television or drinking too much tea. It doesn't quite get at the essence of the man or his (lack of) leadership.







Share |

Yates Time

The widely and justly derided Representative Raul Labrador of Idaho claims he "was trying to explain that all hospitals are required by law to treat patients in need of emergency care..."

Though disingenuous and somewhat beside the point, the Republican's remark should comfort two Texas senators, Cornyn and Cruz, who today need to have tread marks removed from their backs from the tractor driven at the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Cruz started in Cruzian fashion, referring to a statute by its number rather than name or topic, thereby verifying his brilliance. After he asked "well, are you familiar with 8 USC Section 1182," the discussion proceeded as

YATES: Not off the top of my head, no.

CRUZ: Well, it -- it -- it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it -- it certainly is a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute.

By the express text of the statute, it says, quote, "whenever the president finds that entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate."

Would you agree that is broad statutory authorization?

Given that the Acting AG refused to enforce the travel ban, it is reasonable to assume she would understand the entire statute. and she answered

YATES: I would, and I am familiar with that. And I'm also familiar with an additional provision of the INA that says no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against an issuance of a visa because of race, nationality or place of birth, that I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted.

And that's been part of the discussion with the courts, with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described.

Failing to learn from Cruz, John Cornyn remarked

Well, Ms. Yates, you had a distinguished career for 27 years at the Department of Justice and I voted for your confirmation because I believed that you had a distinguished career. But I have to tell you that I find it enormously disappointing that you somehow vetoed the decision of the Office of Legal Counsel with regard to the lawfulness of the president's order and decided instead that you would counter man (ph) the executive order of the president of the United States because you happen to disagree with it as a policy matter.

Yates responded

I appreciate that, Senator, and let me make one thing clear. It is not purely as a policy matter. In fact, I'll remember my confirmation hearing. In an exchange that I had with you and others of your colleagues where you specifically asked me in that hearing that if the president asked me to do something that was unlawful or unconstitutional and one of your colleagues said or even just that would reflect poorly on the Department of Justice, would I say no? And I looked at this, I made a determination that I believed that it was unlawful. I also thought that it was inconsistent with principles of the Department of Justice and I said no. And that's what I promised you I would do and that's what I did.






Time to drop that line of questioning, but Cornyn didn't realize it. Worse, now the lady is backing the tractor up!:

CORNYN: I don't know how you can say that it was lawful and say that it was within your prerogative to refuse to defend it in a court of law and leave it to the court to decide.

YATES: Senator, I did not say it was lawful. I said it was unlawful.





To be fair to Cornyn, he at least asked a reasonable question in a reasonable manner, unlike Cruz, who was too smart by half (a saying itself too smart by half). It's one thing to think you're awfully smart- it's another to underestimate your opponent, and Cruz did so, inexcusably.

Of course, all that pales in significance to their obeisance to the Scoundrel-in-Chief, Donald J. Trump.






Share |

A Better Outcome

Last week Never Trumper George Will wrote about  the "man whose combinationof impulsitivity and credulity render him uniquely unfit to take the nation into a military conflict."  He noted that candidate Trump had little familiarity with the "one China" policy or the nuclear triad and that the President is truly impressed with the "job" Frederick Douglas is currently doing. He added

Now, however, he has instructed us that Andrew Jackson was angry about the Civil War that began 16 years after Jackson’s death. Having, let us fancifully imagine, considered and found unconvincing William Seward’s 1858 judgment that the approaching Civil War was “an irrepressible conflict,” Trump says:

“People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”

Library shelves groan beneath the weight of books asking questions about that war’s origins, so who, one wonders, are these “people” who don’t ask the questions that Trump evidently thinks have occurred to him uniquely? 

Better (or maybe worse) yet, we learned when Will appeared to discuss the column on "The Last Word" that in a primary debate "in defending the conservatism of his sister, who is a federal judge, he said that his sister had signned some of the same bills that Justice Alito had signed on  the Supreme Court."







That's some mighty ignorance going on there, unless Donald Trump has been punking us for the past 23 months. And so it's no trivial feat that 39-year-old former investment banker Emmanuel Macron captured over 66% of the vote in defeating anti-Muslim nationalist Marie Le Pen in the French presidential election.  This followed a debate in which Le Pen gave

an hourslong tirade against Mr. Macron, laced with name-calling and epithets, and woefully deficient in substance. She appeared lost on subject after subject, fumbling on one of her signature issues — withdrawing from the euro — that is opposed by a majority of French. Something essential about Ms. Le Pen, and the National Front, had been revealed to France.

Mr. Macron, on the other hand, demonstrated a quality that French voters, unlike many Anglo-Saxon ones, have long found essential in their successful candidates: cool mastery of the critical issues confronting the country. 

The land of the free, home of the brave, that most exceptional nation, only six months ago could choose a presidential candidate who laced his campaign with name calling, was woefully deficient in substance, and was considered the loser in 3 out of 3 debates. Or it could opt for one with mastery of the critical issues confronting the country.   It didn't go well.

Unlike in the USA, the (runoff) election in France featured two candidates without governmental experience. Still, this small group of voters on the continent selected the more tolerant, rational, sensible, and knowledgeable candidate, as well as the one who far better recognized the proper geopolitical role of the nation. Notwithstanding Hillary Clinton's triumph- narrowly- in the popular vote, the election in the United States of America went the other way.  For now, at least- and despite Emmanuel Macron's shortcomings- Vive la France!






Share |