Neil Cavuto, anchor of "Your World" on Fox News channel, was responding to the latest chaos created by President Trump and Rudy Giuliani about the $130,000 hush money payment. Cavuto unloaded in a way I never expected to hear on Fox News. This concluding excerpt is verbatim:
"Let me be clear, Mr. President. How can you drain the swamp if you're the one who keeps muddying the waters? You didn't know about that $130,000 payment to a porn star, and then you did. You said you knew nothing about how your former lawyer Michael Cohen handled this, until you acknowledged today you were the guy behind the retainer payment that took care of this.
"I'm just having a devil of a time figuring out which news is right. I guess you're too busy draining the swamp to stop and smell the stink that you're creating. That's your doing. That's your stink -- Mis-ter Pres-i-dent."
I was watching Nicole Wallace's news show on MSNBC Friday afternoon when she played this clip from Fox News. Nicole's reaction was the same as mine: a jaw-dropping WOW! This coming from a Fox News anchor. WOW.
This is significant, possibly a turning point. The Wall Street Journal wrote that Trump should worry that the American people will stop believing anything he says. Mara Gay of the New York Times editorial board added to this, saying that we've reach a critical point where people choose to believe news depending on its source, and we are so politically divided, even tribal.
Mara Gay added: People who get their news only from the Wall Street Journal -- or especially only from Fox News -- will now see something other than adulation of Trump.
Ralph
Saturday, May 5, 2018
The basic incompetence of our president
Trump's lawyers don't want him to testify for Mueller's investigation because he is incapable of sticking to the truth and will inevitably perjure himself.
Consider what this means. Our presiden, and the commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the world. not only willfully lies to suit any purpose of the moment -- but he is really incapable of keeping track of what he says from one day to the next. How much of it is due to (1) a lack of any concept of "truth," so there is no guiding light for him to go by; (2) such a frequency of lying that he simply can't remember what he said before; or (3) a willful attempt to deceive in the moment?
No doubt it's a mix of all three. Consider the effect on our allies, as well as our negotiating partners and adversaries. The perfect example is that in the month of May 2018, Trump is preparing to have a high level meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong-un over its nuclear capability and arsenal -- and at the same time insisting that he will pull the U.S. out of the nuclear agreement we made with Iran.
How can North Korea trust anything Trump agrees to -- if he at the same time is reneging on an agreement the U.S. entered into, along with the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China -- and with Iran, about its nuclear capability and arsenal?
Yes, the Iran deal was made by the Obama administration. But we cannot conduct any meaningful foreign policy if each new administration does not honor the commitments made by previous administrations.
Trump has already established his reputation as a chronic, serial liar. Who believes anything he says? Why would Kim Jong-un? How can our own Congress? How can the American people believe this man?
Ralph
Consider what this means. Our presiden, and the commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the world. not only willfully lies to suit any purpose of the moment -- but he is really incapable of keeping track of what he says from one day to the next. How much of it is due to (1) a lack of any concept of "truth," so there is no guiding light for him to go by; (2) such a frequency of lying that he simply can't remember what he said before; or (3) a willful attempt to deceive in the moment?
No doubt it's a mix of all three. Consider the effect on our allies, as well as our negotiating partners and adversaries. The perfect example is that in the month of May 2018, Trump is preparing to have a high level meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong-un over its nuclear capability and arsenal -- and at the same time insisting that he will pull the U.S. out of the nuclear agreement we made with Iran.
How can North Korea trust anything Trump agrees to -- if he at the same time is reneging on an agreement the U.S. entered into, along with the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China -- and with Iran, about its nuclear capability and arsenal?
Yes, the Iran deal was made by the Obama administration. But we cannot conduct any meaningful foreign policy if each new administration does not honor the commitments made by previous administrations.
Trump has already established his reputation as a chronic, serial liar. Who believes anything he says? Why would Kim Jong-un? How can our own Congress? How can the American people believe this man?
Ralph
Friday, May 4, 2018
News flash: AAARRRRGGGGGGHHH !!!
Yesterday, our heads were spinning from the latest "truth" about the Trump-Cohen-Stormy hush money payment. As told on Fox News by the new addition to the Trump legal team, Rudy Giuliani, Trump did reimburse Michael Cohen for the $130,000 through several contributions to a "retainer" fund he paid to Cohen to draw on for such things.
Giuliani said there was nothing illegal about the payment. He also insisted that it was in no way a campaign finance contribution but rather a personal thing that was hurting Trump's marriage and family; that's why they needed to silence Stormy. But then, the next morning he also told Fox and Friends how terrible it would have been if this had come up during the last presidential debate.
So Rudy's story, by itself, is contradictory.
But wait: Friday morning, Trump is now telling people that Rudy is new to the job and didn't quite have his facts straight. In fact, he says, almost everything Rudy said was incorrect. And this was after Trump's initial tweets -- or at least ones sent out in his name -- seemed to back up Giuliani's version. Then, this reversal by Trump.
OK. Now maybe there is a strategy here: Create such confusion that there's no hope of the truth ever being clear.
Ralph
Giuliani said there was nothing illegal about the payment. He also insisted that it was in no way a campaign finance contribution but rather a personal thing that was hurting Trump's marriage and family; that's why they needed to silence Stormy. But then, the next morning he also told Fox and Friends how terrible it would have been if this had come up during the last presidential debate.
So Rudy's story, by itself, is contradictory.
But wait: Friday morning, Trump is now telling people that Rudy is new to the job and didn't quite have his facts straight. In fact, he says, almost everything Rudy said was incorrect. And this was after Trump's initial tweets -- or at least ones sent out in his name -- seemed to back up Giuliani's version. Then, this reversal by Trump.
OK. Now maybe there is a strategy here: Create such confusion that there's no hope of the truth ever being clear.
Ralph
As Trump lawyer, Giuliani does clean-up; tells the truth about $130,000 payment. News flash: Cohen's phone tapped.
Based on report and quotes from Paul Waldman, The Week
"This is where we are: When one of the president's lawyers tells the truth, it's blockbuster news. That's what happened Wednesday night when Giuliani, a relative newcomer to President Trump's ever-rotating legal team, went on Hannity for what should have been another softball interview. To everyone's surprise, Giuliani announced that President Trump reimbursed his attorney Michael Cohen the $130,000 Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) was paid to keep silent about an affair she says she had with Trump.
"Which means that Giuliani admitted that Trump lied about this, the White House lied about it, and Cohen didn't exactly lie about it, but carefully chose his words to fool everyone into thinking something that was false. Good work, Rudy!"
Here's how Giuliani explained it to Hannity and his listeners, then repeated it later to other outlets. Giuliani says it was all perfectly legal; the money was not campaign finance money, and there was no violation of campaign finance rules.
As I understand it, Cohen was paid a regular retainer fee from the Trump Organization (but not the campaign). The retainer supposedly was part fee for Cohen's services but was also a fund that he could use to make hush payments and take other actions to "fix" problems for Trump. And Trump did not necessarily know about what he was doing at the time Cohen was doing it.
Cohen has been careful to parse his words to give impressions without actually saying things he could be held accountable for as lies. For example, here's what Cohen said about the Stormy Daniels payment:
"In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds [retainer fee he had been paid or would be paid later?] to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." [I'm not sure how he can claim the 'indirectly' as true, but all the other might pass as true. And Cohen can claim that he, himself, violated no campaign finance violation; but it's unclear whether Trump himself might be vulnerable to that charge, since he was making a lot of contributions to his own campaign, which he reported (as far as we know); but not this one.]
Rudy first appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Wednesday night to make this revelation -- and at that time he claimed that the $130,000 payment had nothing to do with the campaign. However, Giuliani went back on "Fox and Friends" the next morning and made a conflicting statement. Trying to explain why the payment was made when it was, Giuliani said:
"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton . . . Cohen didn't even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job."
Waldman concludes: "There you are. . . . All this helps explain why Trump's lawyers keep quitting. Not only is he a difficult client who won't take sensible legal advice, his past and present are littered with legally questionable actions you're going to have to clean up, and chances are that he has lied about them, so you're going to have to deal with that too. You'll have to go on Fox to reassure his supporters that everything is under control, but doing so means that you might wind up digging the hole he's in even deeper."
And so . . . Rudy Giuliani, the aging ex-mayor and lawyer turned sleazy fix-it man and Fox TV pundit, as well as avid Trump supporter. Just what's called for for this sleazy, clean-up job. Don't expect Rudy to argue before the Supreme Court whether a sitting president can be compelled to testify. That's the job for the other new lawyer, Emmet Flood with a stellar reputation for high level, white collar cases.
However, if somebody in Trump's semi-sane world can't keep Giuliani off Fox TV, they may come to regret involving him at all. In fact, he's already, with his blathering, created more problems. Saying things like: the Mueller investigation won't go after Ivanka -- "she's off limits because she's his daughter and she's a woman." Now Jared is another matter, because he's a man "and men are disposable." [followed by that toothy Giuliani grin.]
"This is where we are: When one of the president's lawyers tells the truth, it's blockbuster news. That's what happened Wednesday night when Giuliani, a relative newcomer to President Trump's ever-rotating legal team, went on Hannity for what should have been another softball interview. To everyone's surprise, Giuliani announced that President Trump reimbursed his attorney Michael Cohen the $130,000 Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) was paid to keep silent about an affair she says she had with Trump.
"Which means that Giuliani admitted that Trump lied about this, the White House lied about it, and Cohen didn't exactly lie about it, but carefully chose his words to fool everyone into thinking something that was false. Good work, Rudy!"
Here's how Giuliani explained it to Hannity and his listeners, then repeated it later to other outlets. Giuliani says it was all perfectly legal; the money was not campaign finance money, and there was no violation of campaign finance rules.
As I understand it, Cohen was paid a regular retainer fee from the Trump Organization (but not the campaign). The retainer supposedly was part fee for Cohen's services but was also a fund that he could use to make hush payments and take other actions to "fix" problems for Trump. And Trump did not necessarily know about what he was doing at the time Cohen was doing it.
Cohen has been careful to parse his words to give impressions without actually saying things he could be held accountable for as lies. For example, here's what Cohen said about the Stormy Daniels payment:
"In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds [retainer fee he had been paid or would be paid later?] to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." [I'm not sure how he can claim the 'indirectly' as true, but all the other might pass as true. And Cohen can claim that he, himself, violated no campaign finance violation; but it's unclear whether Trump himself might be vulnerable to that charge, since he was making a lot of contributions to his own campaign, which he reported (as far as we know); but not this one.]
Rudy first appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Wednesday night to make this revelation -- and at that time he claimed that the $130,000 payment had nothing to do with the campaign. However, Giuliani went back on "Fox and Friends" the next morning and made a conflicting statement. Trying to explain why the payment was made when it was, Giuliani said:
"Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton . . . Cohen didn't even ask. Cohen made it go away. He did his job."
Waldman concludes: "There you are. . . . All this helps explain why Trump's lawyers keep quitting. Not only is he a difficult client who won't take sensible legal advice, his past and present are littered with legally questionable actions you're going to have to clean up, and chances are that he has lied about them, so you're going to have to deal with that too. You'll have to go on Fox to reassure his supporters that everything is under control, but doing so means that you might wind up digging the hole he's in even deeper."
And so . . . Rudy Giuliani, the aging ex-mayor and lawyer turned sleazy fix-it man and Fox TV pundit, as well as avid Trump supporter. Just what's called for for this sleazy, clean-up job. Don't expect Rudy to argue before the Supreme Court whether a sitting president can be compelled to testify. That's the job for the other new lawyer, Emmet Flood with a stellar reputation for high level, white collar cases.
However, if somebody in Trump's semi-sane world can't keep Giuliani off Fox TV, they may come to regret involving him at all. In fact, he's already, with his blathering, created more problems. Saying things like: the Mueller investigation won't go after Ivanka -- "she's off limits because she's his daughter and she's a woman." Now Jared is another matter, because he's a man "and men are disposable." [followed by that toothy Giuliani grin.]
* * *
Another big news flash: Federal investigators in the New York office handling the Cohen case, have had a wire tap on Cohen's phone, sources told NBC News. It's not clear when it began, but it was at least prior to the raid and was part of the evidence to support the request for those search warrants. Sources also said that it was still in place and likely would have picked up the call from President Trump to Cohen following the raid. However, it's the kind of tap that records only the meta-data of the calls -- who, when, etc. -- not the content. Still, a lot of useful information for investigators.
RalphTuesday, May 1, 2018
Taking a few days off. Check back Friday.
A few personal things to take care of. So let's give ShrinkRap a rest. Probably be back up on Friday -- or possibly sooner if some irresistible news occurs.
Ralph
Ralph
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Bookstores making a come-back.
CBS News reports on the return of the book store -- as in brick and mortar buildings. with shelves and tables filled with those old-fashioned reading devices, not made of metal and plastic but of paper and ink. A real store with live people who might chat with you and make suggestions of the latest "good read.'
There have been rumors for years, but now we have some data. Harvard Business School professor Ryan Raffaelli has been studying the mysterious 'return of the book stores.' "Between 2009 and 2015, more than 570 independent bookstores opened in the U.S., bringing the total to more than 2,200; that's about a 35 percent jump after more than a decade of decline."
Professor Raffaelli has been seeking an answer to this new growth which has increased every year since 2009, "despite cheaper, more convenient ways to buy books online, in national chains, and with e-readers." What's causing bookstores to hold their own against the digital onslaught?
What Raffaelli is finding is that successful bookstores are ones that emphasize local appeal, a curated selection, and sponsored events (like author readings or poetry readings or book clubs) . . . "So, buying a book becomes an act of community-building as opposed to just a consumer purchase." He continues:
"You talk to people, have someone treat you like a friend, someone who will share with you something they love. You can't get that online." A new store owner explained: "You can read on your phone, but we're finding that so many people spend so much time on devices, that when it comes to reading for pleasure, they don't want to read from a device."
This feels like one of the most hopeful things to happen -- and it's so gratifying to have this revival during my lifetime. As a small boy, books were my escape from the stultifying anti-intellectualism of a small Southern town. Books opened up new worlds of experience and ideas and culture. We didn't have a book store in Sandersville, but we did have a library -- as well as the one at our school. I've never lost that sense of wonder and exhilaration when opening a new book, ready to encounter a whole new world.
Ralph
There have been rumors for years, but now we have some data. Harvard Business School professor Ryan Raffaelli has been studying the mysterious 'return of the book stores.' "Between 2009 and 2015, more than 570 independent bookstores opened in the U.S., bringing the total to more than 2,200; that's about a 35 percent jump after more than a decade of decline."
Professor Raffaelli has been seeking an answer to this new growth which has increased every year since 2009, "despite cheaper, more convenient ways to buy books online, in national chains, and with e-readers." What's causing bookstores to hold their own against the digital onslaught?
What Raffaelli is finding is that successful bookstores are ones that emphasize local appeal, a curated selection, and sponsored events (like author readings or poetry readings or book clubs) . . . "So, buying a book becomes an act of community-building as opposed to just a consumer purchase." He continues:
"You talk to people, have someone treat you like a friend, someone who will share with you something they love. You can't get that online." A new store owner explained: "You can read on your phone, but we're finding that so many people spend so much time on devices, that when it comes to reading for pleasure, they don't want to read from a device."
This feels like one of the most hopeful things to happen -- and it's so gratifying to have this revival during my lifetime. As a small boy, books were my escape from the stultifying anti-intellectualism of a small Southern town. Books opened up new worlds of experience and ideas and culture. We didn't have a book store in Sandersville, but we did have a library -- as well as the one at our school. I've never lost that sense of wonder and exhilaration when opening a new book, ready to encounter a whole new world.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
