Briefly, here's what's been happening:
1. The #3 person at the Justice Department has resigned after many years as a highly respected career attorney to go into the private sector. People who know her say she's fed up with the work environment at the DoJ under Trump and Sessions. She's the one who would have become the overseer of the Mueller investigation if Rod Rosenstein gets fired or has to recuse himself. Now who?
2. The president announced that he will not declassify and allow to be released the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo. Even though the Dem's memo had already been run by the FBI and the Justice Department for any redactions they felt were needed. Trump obviously is turning it into a political weapon -- because the Dem's memo refutes what Trump claimed "completely vindicated" him in the Nunes memo.
3. The White House Secretary had to resign yesterday because of credible accusation by two ex-wives of serious and documented domestic violence. Today's story is about who in the WH knew what, when. Gen. Kelly seems to be lying -- and asking staff to lie for him -- about when he knew. He was told months ago that this was why Porter's security clearance hadn't come through. Kelly's defense is probably that he didn't believe the accusations against Porter until he saw the ex-wife's black-eye picture. That's the only way it makes sense; othewise, he is simply lying. So speculation is rampant about Kelly having to resign.
4, A second White House staffer, a speechwriter, also having trouble getting an FBI security clearance, had to resign because of allegation by his ex-wife of spousal physical abuse.
5. Vice President Mike Pence attended the opening ceremonies for the Olympics in South Korea, sitting just feet away from the leader of the North Korean delegation, Kim Jong-un's sister. Pense snubbed her, and he tried to throw cold water at every opportunity on the North and South's attempts at a thaw and the opening for talks. Pense kept reminding the media, in every statement, not to be fooled by the North's "propaganda." He reminds me of the odd uncle at a family gathering, standing off, aloof, with that bland, half-smirk on his face.
6. Oh, yes, by the way. From midnight until 5:20 am Friday, the government was shut down -- again. And, again, it was because Congress hadn't been able to pass a budget bill, this one for spending. This time, it was Rand Paul who refused to allow the vote on the bill that had bipartisan support. Paul was making his point about the addition to the deficit from this spending bill. I agree with him that the deficit and national debt are too big. But it's more the fault of the Republican's big tax cuts than of this important spending bill, which provides both for the military and for domestic spending.
7. But in the wee hours, when Paul finally allowed a vote, the bill was passed with bipartisan support. And the shutdown government was reopened. The news here is that for the first time in a long time, we actually have a two year budget, instead of all these short-term bandaids. That's the big news, not the 5 hour and 20 minute shutdown.
No, that wasn't the week's news; that was Friday's news. At least the headline items.
Ralph
Saturday, February 10, 2018
Friday, February 9, 2018
The unclad emperor is repugnant
First up today is the question: Does Donald Trump not understand how the stock market works? Or is he so far gone into his own narcissistic orbit that he can only see something as how it relates to himself?
Before the market plunged last week -- was it really the largest one-day drop in history? It depends on whether your counting dollars or percent -- Trump was all eager to take credit for the phenomenal rise in stock prices. Economists and most savvy investors know that the president has very little to do with such a rise -- or fall.
And if any policies had anything to do with the steep climb, it was more likely the Federal Reserve Board -- and President Obama's policies. Most economists and savvy investors also know that this kind of super-charged rise in market prices is more properly seen as a bubble that, sooner or later, will undergo a correction, which means sell-offs that bring it down to a more reasonable growth rate.
But Donald likes shiney objects and "the greatest numbers," even if they are false. So there he was claiming credit for his effect on the economy that produced such great numbers.
So what did he do with the big plunge in stock prices this week? You guessed it. He had nothing what so ever to do with that, really. In fact, rather, he claimed he did -- wait for it -- because it was all part of the great growth he has stimulated. The plunge was just a mistake that investors made. They should have held on instead of selling. Whatever, it was not his fault.
Got that? Proclaimed as would any proper Emperor without any clothes on. Take credit for the rise; say the drop is someone else's fault.
Actually, it sounds more like a garbled version of someone trying to explain to him about bubbles and corrections . . . except that he didn't quite get it.
Of course, now in asking for a parade in Washington, his advisers have made certain that it is framed as something to honor our brave military men and women serving.
[And we just won't mention that military parades are generally the province of authoritarian regimes, like Russia and China -- and par excellance -- North Korea. How do NK soldiers manage to sustain that high-kick march style?]
Anyway, bubbles burst. The market is going through something of a corrective, unrelated to Trump's mangled theory of what caused it. And, aside from those whose duty it is to flatter the president, there's a lot of bubble-bursting about the parade.
Democrats have focused on the expense (millions) that could be put to better use. On Pennsylvania Avenue (the parade will go right by the Trump Hotel, of course), the tank tracks will tear into the asphalt, meaning an additional expense to resurface the whole street afterwards.
Others have said that it is a display of weakness, not strength. We Americans tout our ideas, our values, our democracy -- not our military might. One even quoted the flinty old Margaret Thatcher, who turned up her nose at displays of power, saying:
"A display of power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."
And then there was a tweet from retired Major General Paul Eaton who said that Trump's past praise of authoritarian strongmen . . . made clear that he wasn't really interested in celebrating the military. In a tweet he added that "the parade idea underscores his authoritarian tendencies, and that our military is not there to be 'used and abused' to prop up his image." He added that the parade was "about making a display of the military saluting him. . . . Unfortunately, we do not have a commander in chief, right now, as much as we have a wannabe banana republic strongman."
Ralph
Before the market plunged last week -- was it really the largest one-day drop in history? It depends on whether your counting dollars or percent -- Trump was all eager to take credit for the phenomenal rise in stock prices. Economists and most savvy investors know that the president has very little to do with such a rise -- or fall.
And if any policies had anything to do with the steep climb, it was more likely the Federal Reserve Board -- and President Obama's policies. Most economists and savvy investors also know that this kind of super-charged rise in market prices is more properly seen as a bubble that, sooner or later, will undergo a correction, which means sell-offs that bring it down to a more reasonable growth rate.
But Donald likes shiney objects and "the greatest numbers," even if they are false. So there he was claiming credit for his effect on the economy that produced such great numbers.
So what did he do with the big plunge in stock prices this week? You guessed it. He had nothing what so ever to do with that, really. In fact, rather, he claimed he did -- wait for it -- because it was all part of the great growth he has stimulated. The plunge was just a mistake that investors made. They should have held on instead of selling. Whatever, it was not his fault.
Got that? Proclaimed as would any proper Emperor without any clothes on. Take credit for the rise; say the drop is someone else's fault.
Actually, it sounds more like a garbled version of someone trying to explain to him about bubbles and corrections . . . except that he didn't quite get it.
* * *
Second item on the Naked Emperor list: President Trump wants a great military parade right down Pennsylvania Avenue. See, when President Macron of France invited him to visit during Bastille Day Celebrations, that included a wonderful military parade that he loved. Macron is no fool. He knew Trump would love the pomp and would revel in having such a display saluting HIM.Of course, now in asking for a parade in Washington, his advisers have made certain that it is framed as something to honor our brave military men and women serving.
[And we just won't mention that military parades are generally the province of authoritarian regimes, like Russia and China -- and par excellance -- North Korea. How do NK soldiers manage to sustain that high-kick march style?]
Anyway, bubbles burst. The market is going through something of a corrective, unrelated to Trump's mangled theory of what caused it. And, aside from those whose duty it is to flatter the president, there's a lot of bubble-bursting about the parade.
Democrats have focused on the expense (millions) that could be put to better use. On Pennsylvania Avenue (the parade will go right by the Trump Hotel, of course), the tank tracks will tear into the asphalt, meaning an additional expense to resurface the whole street afterwards.
Others have said that it is a display of weakness, not strength. We Americans tout our ideas, our values, our democracy -- not our military might. One even quoted the flinty old Margaret Thatcher, who turned up her nose at displays of power, saying:
"A display of power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."
And then there was a tweet from retired Major General Paul Eaton who said that Trump's past praise of authoritarian strongmen . . . made clear that he wasn't really interested in celebrating the military. In a tweet he added that "the parade idea underscores his authoritarian tendencies, and that our military is not there to be 'used and abused' to prop up his image." He added that the parade was "about making a display of the military saluting him. . . . Unfortunately, we do not have a commander in chief, right now, as much as we have a wannabe banana republic strongman."
Ralph
Thursday, February 8, 2018
A chuckle in the darkness of "the memo"
Devin Nunes' leading Democratic opponent in the 2018 congressional election, Andrew Janz is a prosecutor, who told MSNBC of a saying they have in the business.
"If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, argue the facts. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, take off your shoe and bang on the table. And that's what Devin Nunes was doing with this memo."
"If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, argue the facts. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, take off your shoe and bang on the table. And that's what Devin Nunes was doing with this memo."
Trump brags about polar ice caps "breaking records."
[This has been in the posting queue since before the Nunes memo hit the fan, so it now feels dated. But I still wanted to share it.]
Actually, president Trump didn't do too badly at the Davos summit of global elitists, given that he campaigned by demonizing them and their ideas. He pretty much stuck to his teleprompter speech that sought to ease fears and reassure that "we are open for business." He also softened his tag line to: "Making American Great" does not mean "America Alone."
Yes, there were the minor gaffes here and there. But, given Trump and his limitations of knowledge and exaggerations of style, it was an OK, even somewhat reassuring, performance -- if you were focused only on economics and not on humanitarian issues.
So it perhaps stuck out a little more by contrast then when he did a sit-down interview with Piers Morgan for British TV, which aired on Sunday night. Morgan asked his thoughts about climate change.
Trump was a bit all over the place, putting out the confused talking point: "There is cooling, and there's a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be 'climate change,' it used to be 'global warming.' Right? That wasn't working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place."
And then he seized on the polar ice caps, which he claimed were "breaking records." [They were saying]: "The ice caps were going to melt. They were going to be gone by now, but now they're setting records. They're at a record level.
FACT CHECK: Yes, the ice caps are setting a new record . . . for melting. Trump didn't seem to get that. Not every "record" is something to brag about.
FURTHER FACT CHECKING: On "too cold all over the place." 2017 was the second hottest year on record. The oceans were the hottest ever recorded. And there has not been a year since 1976 (forty-one years) in which the average earth temperature was below the average of 135 years of temperature records kept by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
So, Donald, your Friends on Fox may tell you all these fake facts that you prefer to believe. But the world -- including your new "friends" at Davos -- still operates on science for understanding the physical world, at least.
You better get with it, Donald. In Europe, they're laughing at you.
Ralph
Actually, president Trump didn't do too badly at the Davos summit of global elitists, given that he campaigned by demonizing them and their ideas. He pretty much stuck to his teleprompter speech that sought to ease fears and reassure that "we are open for business." He also softened his tag line to: "Making American Great" does not mean "America Alone."
Yes, there were the minor gaffes here and there. But, given Trump and his limitations of knowledge and exaggerations of style, it was an OK, even somewhat reassuring, performance -- if you were focused only on economics and not on humanitarian issues.
So it perhaps stuck out a little more by contrast then when he did a sit-down interview with Piers Morgan for British TV, which aired on Sunday night. Morgan asked his thoughts about climate change.
Trump was a bit all over the place, putting out the confused talking point: "There is cooling, and there's a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be 'climate change,' it used to be 'global warming.' Right? That wasn't working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place."
And then he seized on the polar ice caps, which he claimed were "breaking records." [They were saying]: "The ice caps were going to melt. They were going to be gone by now, but now they're setting records. They're at a record level.
FACT CHECK: Yes, the ice caps are setting a new record . . . for melting. Trump didn't seem to get that. Not every "record" is something to brag about.
FURTHER FACT CHECKING: On "too cold all over the place." 2017 was the second hottest year on record. The oceans were the hottest ever recorded. And there has not been a year since 1976 (forty-one years) in which the average earth temperature was below the average of 135 years of temperature records kept by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
So, Donald, your Friends on Fox may tell you all these fake facts that you prefer to believe. But the world -- including your new "friends" at Davos -- still operates on science for understanding the physical world, at least.
You better get with it, Donald. In Europe, they're laughing at you.
Ralph
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Cowardice of congressional Republicans
Michael Gerson is a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post. His article is titled: "The cowardice among Republicans is staggering."
"The existence of reckless partisans such as Nunes is hardly surprising. The nearly uniform cowardice among elected Republicans is staggering. . . . The Republican-led Congress is now an adjunct of the White House. The White House is now an adjunct of Trump's chaotic will.
"And what to make of Ryan? . . . By his recent actions, the speaker has provided political cover for a weakening of the constitutional order. He has been used as a tool while loudly insisting he is not a tool. The way Ryan is headed, history offers two possible verdicts: Either he enabled an autocrat, or he was intimidated by a fool. I believe Ryan to be a good person. But the greatest source of cynicism is not the existence of corrupt people in politics; it is good people who lose their way.
"The United States Congress is an institution of great power. . . . But now it watches as Trump makes the executive branch his personal fiefdom. It stands by — or cheers — as the president persecutes law enforcement professionals for the performance of their public duties. . . .
"Trump has made a practice of forcing people around him to lower their standards and abandon their ideals before turning against them when their usefulness ends. . . . A generation of Republicans will end up writing memoirs of apology and regret.
"The political damage to the GOP as the party of corruption and coverup should be obvious as well. This is a rare case when the rats, rather than deserting a sinking ship, seemed determined to ride it all the way down.
"But it is damage to the conscience that is hardest to repair. For Republicans, what seemed like a temporary political compromise is becoming an indelible moral stain. . . . By defending Trump's transgressions, by justifying his abuses, Republicans are creating an atmosphere in which corruption and cowardice thrive.
"How can this course be corrected? . . . . If there is nothing for which Ryan and other Republican leaders will risk their careers, there is nothing in which they truly believe."
Michael Gerson has always been known as a man of conscience and morality. He stood out in the Bush era -- he could never be on the inside in the Trump era.
* * * * *
". . . . "Releasing the memo . . . ended in a pathetic fizzle. . . Nunes (R-Calif.) deserves his own exhibit in the hackery hall of fame. This was a true innovation: . . . created and released for the consumption of Fox News. . . .
"The existence of reckless partisans such as Nunes is hardly surprising. The nearly uniform cowardice among elected Republicans is staggering. . . . The Republican-led Congress is now an adjunct of the White House. The White House is now an adjunct of Trump's chaotic will.
"And what to make of Ryan? . . . By his recent actions, the speaker has provided political cover for a weakening of the constitutional order. He has been used as a tool while loudly insisting he is not a tool. The way Ryan is headed, history offers two possible verdicts: Either he enabled an autocrat, or he was intimidated by a fool. I believe Ryan to be a good person. But the greatest source of cynicism is not the existence of corrupt people in politics; it is good people who lose their way.
"The United States Congress is an institution of great power. . . . But now it watches as Trump makes the executive branch his personal fiefdom. It stands by — or cheers — as the president persecutes law enforcement professionals for the performance of their public duties. . . .
"Trump has made a practice of forcing people around him to lower their standards and abandon their ideals before turning against them when their usefulness ends. . . . A generation of Republicans will end up writing memoirs of apology and regret.
"The political damage to the GOP as the party of corruption and coverup should be obvious as well. This is a rare case when the rats, rather than deserting a sinking ship, seemed determined to ride it all the way down.
"But it is damage to the conscience that is hardest to repair. For Republicans, what seemed like a temporary political compromise is becoming an indelible moral stain. . . . By defending Trump's transgressions, by justifying his abuses, Republicans are creating an atmosphere in which corruption and cowardice thrive.
"How can this course be corrected? . . . . If there is nothing for which Ryan and other Republican leaders will risk their careers, there is nothing in which they truly believe."
* * * * *
Michael Gerson has always been known as a man of conscience and morality. He stood out in the Bush era -- he could never be on the inside in the Trump era.
Are there any Republicans in congress who still have hold of a moral compass, or even a simple belief in the Constitution? John McCain is one. Where are the others . . . and will they speak up now, finally?
Ralph
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Trump: "It's un-American not to applaud my State of the Union speech."
At a campaign-style speech in Cincinnati on Monday, President Trump tore into Democrats who didn't applaud or give him standing ovations during his State of the Union speech last week. Calling them "un-American," perhaps even "treasonous," he said, "They certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."
Why am I still shocked at what this man reveals about his concept of the presidency? Especially after those coerced, nauseating rounds of praise from his cabinet officers, telling him how great he is and what a "blessing" it is to work for him (Priebus). Trump puts into words exactly what a full-fledged dictator demands in action. How far is it from words to action? Let's hope we don't ever have to find out.
Collateral damage of the attacks on FBI
Many experienced, career professionals have already left the FBI as a result of Trump inspired attacks on the integrity of the institution: Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and others whose names have not become as familiar.
Here's the latest resignation, from John Campbell, a supervisory special agent. He announced his resignation in the New York Times on Friday:
"After more than a decade of service, which included investigating terrorism, working to rescue kidnapping victims overseas and being special assistant to the director, I am reluctantly turning in my badge and leaving an organization that I love. Why? So I can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless attacks on the bureau undermine not just America's premier law enforcement agency but also the nation's security.
"My resignation is painful, but the alternative of remaining quiet while the bureau is tarnished for political gain is impossible," Campbell concluded.
Here's the latest resignation, from John Campbell, a supervisory special agent. He announced his resignation in the New York Times on Friday:
"After more than a decade of service, which included investigating terrorism, working to rescue kidnapping victims overseas and being special assistant to the director, I am reluctantly turning in my badge and leaving an organization that I love. Why? So I can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless attacks on the bureau undermine not just America's premier law enforcement agency but also the nation's security.
"My resignation is painful, but the alternative of remaining quiet while the bureau is tarnished for political gain is impossible," Campbell concluded.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Nunes memo backfires
Four Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee have distanced themselves from the use President Trump is trying to make of the Nunes memo to discredit the Mueller investigation. In contrast, these four -- one of whom is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who read the documents and helped Nunes draft the memo -- are saying that it has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, echoing what Speaker Paul Ryan said before it was released.
In addition, former CIA Director John Brennan said on Sunday's NBC "Meet the Press" that Nunes had selectively used information to accuse law enforcement officials of improper use of materials. "It's just appalling and clearly underscores how partisan Mr. Nunes has become. [Nunes] "has abused the chairmanship of the [Intelligence Committee]," Brennan said.
And then there's the article by Jonathan Chait on "The Daily Intelligencer," which makes this clarifying corrective. He wrote that "there is one underlying truth. The intelligence community truly fears [Trump] and considers him unfit for the presidency. This is not because the intelligence community is traitorous, or left wing . . . It is because the IC had early access to a wide array of terrifying intelligence linking Trump and his orbit to Russia. People who spend their lives protecting their country from foreign threats saw in Trump a candidate who had at some level been compromised by one of them."
Chait then explains that Trump and his allies turned this around causally and claimed that -- because the intelligence community distrusts Trump -- its bias makes their investigation illegitimate. According to this view, "If they were unbiased . . . they wouldn't be investigating Trump in the first place."
But it's the other way around. Because of what the investigation revealed, they do not trust Trump to act in the best interests of our country.
As to their claim in the Nunes memo that the justification for the FISA warrant on Carter Page was tainted by bias, legal scholars and counterintelligence officers have explained that the FISA court routinely gets and considers information from biased sources. That's not unusual or a problem The application is 50 to 100 pages long, is scrupulously detailed, and all data is put in perspective of the source. So that central claim of the Nunes memo carries no weight.
Chait also says that the other claim of bias in the memo -- that of the FBI agent Peter Strzok -- is also turned around. A full review of the email chain shows that the negative comments about Trump as a president are rooted in the knowledge of his possible compromised position vis a vis Russia.
Chait concludes with this: "Trump has not even bothered to conceal his belief that the memo gives him an excuse to replace Rod Rosenstein . . . with a more plaint figure. Trump believes to his core that he is entitled to federal law enforcement run by personal loyalists, and that any investigation of him is per se evidence of disqualifying bias. Nunes's memo places the House Republicans foursquare behind that grotesquely authoritarian belief."
No wonder some House Republicans are starting to jump ship.
Ralph
In addition, former CIA Director John Brennan said on Sunday's NBC "Meet the Press" that Nunes had selectively used information to accuse law enforcement officials of improper use of materials. "It's just appalling and clearly underscores how partisan Mr. Nunes has become. [Nunes] "has abused the chairmanship of the [Intelligence Committee]," Brennan said.
And then there's the article by Jonathan Chait on "The Daily Intelligencer," which makes this clarifying corrective. He wrote that "there is one underlying truth. The intelligence community truly fears [Trump] and considers him unfit for the presidency. This is not because the intelligence community is traitorous, or left wing . . . It is because the IC had early access to a wide array of terrifying intelligence linking Trump and his orbit to Russia. People who spend their lives protecting their country from foreign threats saw in Trump a candidate who had at some level been compromised by one of them."
Chait then explains that Trump and his allies turned this around causally and claimed that -- because the intelligence community distrusts Trump -- its bias makes their investigation illegitimate. According to this view, "If they were unbiased . . . they wouldn't be investigating Trump in the first place."
But it's the other way around. Because of what the investigation revealed, they do not trust Trump to act in the best interests of our country.
As to their claim in the Nunes memo that the justification for the FISA warrant on Carter Page was tainted by bias, legal scholars and counterintelligence officers have explained that the FISA court routinely gets and considers information from biased sources. That's not unusual or a problem The application is 50 to 100 pages long, is scrupulously detailed, and all data is put in perspective of the source. So that central claim of the Nunes memo carries no weight.
Chait also says that the other claim of bias in the memo -- that of the FBI agent Peter Strzok -- is also turned around. A full review of the email chain shows that the negative comments about Trump as a president are rooted in the knowledge of his possible compromised position vis a vis Russia.
Chait concludes with this: "Trump has not even bothered to conceal his belief that the memo gives him an excuse to replace Rod Rosenstein . . . with a more plaint figure. Trump believes to his core that he is entitled to federal law enforcement run by personal loyalists, and that any investigation of him is per se evidence of disqualifying bias. Nunes's memo places the House Republicans foursquare behind that grotesquely authoritarian belief."
No wonder some House Republicans are starting to jump ship.
Ralph
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Response to the Nunes memo: "That's it?"
Folks, these two responses, from James Comey and from John McCain, were in my postscript to yesterday's post; but they are so pertinent I want to repeat them today for emphasis. Oh, and by the way, both men are Republicans.
Senator John McCain, writing from home in Arizona as he deals with brain cancer treatment, said: "The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests -- no party's, no President's, only Putin's. . . . If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin's job for him."
And from The Guardian's Walter Shapiro:
"Ever since Watergate, the standard for any scandal is whether there is a smokiing gun left next to a corpse. In the case of the Nunes memo, we lack a body and the gun is a child's toy pistol."
From Carl Bernstein's interview on CNN with Jake Tapper (reported by Mary Papenfuss). Bernstein, along with Bob Woodward, were the Washington Post reporters who broke open the Nixon/Watergate scandal.
Bernstein warned that the Trump administration may be ushering in the darkest days since Joe McCarthy, who conducted the notorious anti-communist "witch hunts" in the 1950s Cold War era. He also called the Nunes memo a "disinghenuous partisan document . . . . a red herring intended to derail special counsel Mueller's investigation.
He went on: "In the whole Cold War, the Russians were not able to do what Putin has done through Donald Trump -- to destabilize the United States and its democratic institutions. It's stunning. It's ruinous." He said he hopes the Republicans will stop following the president in "lockstep" and "get hold of their senses. . . . [and] see how Donald Trump has been manipulated. . . ."
* * *
When former FBI Director James Comey finally saw the Nunes memo, his reaction was an incredulous, "That's it? . . . [a] dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House Intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what?"Senator John McCain, writing from home in Arizona as he deals with brain cancer treatment, said: "The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests -- no party's, no President's, only Putin's. . . . If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin's job for him."
And from The Guardian's Walter Shapiro:
"Ever since Watergate, the standard for any scandal is whether there is a smokiing gun left next to a corpse. In the case of the Nunes memo, we lack a body and the gun is a child's toy pistol."
From Carl Bernstein's interview on CNN with Jake Tapper (reported by Mary Papenfuss). Bernstein, along with Bob Woodward, were the Washington Post reporters who broke open the Nixon/Watergate scandal.
Bernstein warned that the Trump administration may be ushering in the darkest days since Joe McCarthy, who conducted the notorious anti-communist "witch hunts" in the 1950s Cold War era. He also called the Nunes memo a "disinghenuous partisan document . . . . a red herring intended to derail special counsel Mueller's investigation.
He went on: "In the whole Cold War, the Russians were not able to do what Putin has done through Donald Trump -- to destabilize the United States and its democratic institutions. It's stunning. It's ruinous." He said he hopes the Republicans will stop following the president in "lockstep" and "get hold of their senses. . . . [and] see how Donald Trump has been manipulated. . . ."
It's your move, Paul Ryan
Just days ago, explaining his support to release the Nunes memo, Speaker Paul Ryan spoke of needing transparency on whether an American citizen's identity may have been exposed inappropriately by a FISA warrant application. (Oddly, releasing the memo will now give world-wide exposure to that person's identity, so that's an odd reason to give to start with.)
Ryan went on to say that this is separate from the Mueller investigation and has nothing to do with it -- therefore:
"People should not conflate the two."
But conflate the two is exactly what President Trump has done with his Friday morning tweet:
Back to Ryan. Paul Ryan bears some responsibility for this debacle. When the head of the FBI and the Deputy AG came to him to plead for his help by stopping Chairman Devin Nunes' demands that they supply him with top secret documents, Ryan sided with Nunes.
Secondly, Ryan totally supported releasing the memo to the public, subject to the approval (including declassifying material in the memo) by the president. In doing so, he made that little-noticed clarification about not conflating this with the Mueller investigation.
Deaf ears from Republicans -- who only wanted this as a political tool and as a pretext for Trump to fire Rosenstein so he can install a more malleable overseer of Mueller's investigation.
SPEAK UP, Speaker Ryan. You let it happen. Now it's up to you to try to rein in your attack dogs. Our democratic institutions are at risk. You are one of the key people to do something to stop the destruction you helped start.
Ralph
Ryan went on to say that this is separate from the Mueller investigation and has nothing to do with it -- therefore:
"People should not conflate the two."
But conflate the two is exactly what President Trump has done with his Friday morning tweet:
"This memo totally vindicates "Trump" in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their (sic) was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!Well, first, it's not true that nothing was found. Two campaign staffers have pled guilty and are cooperating witnesses, while two others are now under indictment.
Back to Ryan. Paul Ryan bears some responsibility for this debacle. When the head of the FBI and the Deputy AG came to him to plead for his help by stopping Chairman Devin Nunes' demands that they supply him with top secret documents, Ryan sided with Nunes.
Secondly, Ryan totally supported releasing the memo to the public, subject to the approval (including declassifying material in the memo) by the president. In doing so, he made that little-noticed clarification about not conflating this with the Mueller investigation.
Deaf ears from Republicans -- who only wanted this as a political tool and as a pretext for Trump to fire Rosenstein so he can install a more malleable overseer of Mueller's investigation.
SPEAK UP, Speaker Ryan. You let it happen. Now it's up to you to try to rein in your attack dogs. Our democratic institutions are at risk. You are one of the key people to do something to stop the destruction you helped start.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
