The Washington Post reported Friday evening that North Korea has declared that, as of Saturday (today), it will suspend nuclear and missile tests and shut down the site where the previous six nuclear tests were conducted.
According to the news report, this decision "came out of a meeting of the central committee of the ruling Worker's Party of Korea held Friday to discuss policy issues related to 'a new stage' in a 'historic' period."
One more step, in seems, toward trying to get to "yes" with the U.S.
Ralph
Saturday, April 21, 2018
DNC sues . . . well, almost everybody, except Trump himself.
A group of Washington Post reporters, led by veteran journalist Tom Hamburger, is reporting that the Democratic National Committee has filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump election campaign (but not Trump himself), and the WikiLeaks organization. The suit alleges "a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump."
This suit has been filed in federal district court in Manhattan. It alleges, among other things, that "top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency" to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump by hacking computer networks of the DNC and disseminating stolen material found there.
In an accompanying statement, DNC Chair Thomas Perez said; "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump's campaign. ."
Perez continued: "This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency."
The Post article asserts that this legal tactic "echoes a similar legal tactic that the Democratic Party used during the Watergate scandal" in 1972. It eventually won a $750,000 settlement from the Nixon campaign of the $1 million damages sought in the suit. That settlement was reached on the day Nixon left office.
Although the suit does not name Trump as a defendant, it does charge aides who are believed to have been affiliated with Russia during the campaign. These include: Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Rick Gates. The Russian military intelligence service (GRU), WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Roger Stone are also named, as are a number of other minor players.
This was unexpected, by me anyway. It's hard to know what this means and what it will lead to. In many ways, of course, it parallels the Mueller investigation. It avoids, however, naming the president himself as a defendant. In doing that, it would seem to give this suit the freedom to be pursued in the federal courts, rather than being bound by rules that govern whether a sitting president can be charged. Perhaps it could also lead to depositions of these people and trials, regardless of what happens in the Mueller investigation and report.
This news has just broken midday Friday. I'm sure we'll be hearing lots of legal analysis and opinions on the cable news talk shows. And I'll be adding to this as the day goes on.
Ralph
This suit has been filed in federal district court in Manhattan. It alleges, among other things, that "top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency" to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump by hacking computer networks of the DNC and disseminating stolen material found there.
In an accompanying statement, DNC Chair Thomas Perez said; "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump's campaign. ."
Perez continued: "This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery: the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency."
The Post article asserts that this legal tactic "echoes a similar legal tactic that the Democratic Party used during the Watergate scandal" in 1972. It eventually won a $750,000 settlement from the Nixon campaign of the $1 million damages sought in the suit. That settlement was reached on the day Nixon left office.
Although the suit does not name Trump as a defendant, it does charge aides who are believed to have been affiliated with Russia during the campaign. These include: Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Rick Gates. The Russian military intelligence service (GRU), WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Roger Stone are also named, as are a number of other minor players.
This was unexpected, by me anyway. It's hard to know what this means and what it will lead to. In many ways, of course, it parallels the Mueller investigation. It avoids, however, naming the president himself as a defendant. In doing that, it would seem to give this suit the freedom to be pursued in the federal courts, rather than being bound by rules that govern whether a sitting president can be charged. Perhaps it could also lead to depositions of these people and trials, regardless of what happens in the Mueller investigation and report.
This news has just broken midday Friday. I'm sure we'll be hearing lots of legal analysis and opinions on the cable news talk shows. And I'll be adding to this as the day goes on.
Ralph
Friday, April 20, 2018
Barbara Bush addresses Wellesley grads despite controversy
As First Lady during the presidency of her husband, George H. W. Bush, Barbara Bush was invited to give the 1990 commencement address at Wellesley College. There were protests against the choice from the young women, who argued in a petition that she had "gained recognition through the achievements of her husband, . . . [whereas] Wellesley teaches us that we will be rewarded on the basis of our own merit, not on that of a spouse."
Unperturbed and unapologetic over who she was, Barbara Bush showed up and gave the address -- which included the observation that there is perhaps someone in the audience who would, like her, one day preside over the White House as the president's spouse. "And I wish him well."
That's where she won over the audience -- and nearly brought down the house in spirited applause.
Unperturbed and unapologetic over who she was, Barbara Bush showed up and gave the address -- which included the observation that there is perhaps someone in the audience who would, like her, one day preside over the White House as the president's spouse. "And I wish him well."
That's where she won over the audience -- and nearly brought down the house in spirited applause.
When do we take "yes" as an answer from North Korea?
It has recently been revealed that CIA Director Mike Pompao, at the direction of President Trump, made a secret trip to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un as part of the advance planning for a summit meeting between Kim and President Trump.
A CIA Director was an odd choice for such an assignment, but Mike Pompao is also the nominee undergoing Senate confirmation hearings to be the new Secretary of State to replace Rex Tillerson. It now appears that Pompao's chances of being approved in committee are about 50/50 (based on his hawkish foreign policy views, as well as his ultraconservative social issues positions); but Mitch McConnell will bring it directly to a senate floor vote anyway.
That's all another story. Here I want to focus on North Korea and what appear to be remarkable reversals in its stance toward negotiations with the United States.
Choe Sang-Hun has reported for the New York Times that Kim Jong-un has made a key concession in advance of the meeting with President Trump:
A CIA Director was an odd choice for such an assignment, but Mike Pompao is also the nominee undergoing Senate confirmation hearings to be the new Secretary of State to replace Rex Tillerson. It now appears that Pompao's chances of being approved in committee are about 50/50 (based on his hawkish foreign policy views, as well as his ultraconservative social issues positions); but Mitch McConnell will bring it directly to a senate floor vote anyway.
That's all another story. Here I want to focus on North Korea and what appear to be remarkable reversals in its stance toward negotiations with the United States.
Choe Sang-Hun has reported for the New York Times that Kim Jong-un has made a key concession in advance of the meeting with President Trump:
* * * * *
Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, has removed a key obstacle to negotiations with Washington by no longer demanding that American troops be removed from South Korea as a condition for denuclearizing his country, the South’s president, Moon Jae-in, said Thursday. Choe continues:
"For decades, the reclusive country . . . has persistently demanded the withdrawal of 28,500 American troops in South Korea, citing their presence as a pretext to justify its development of nuclear weapons. . . . Mr. Moon said North Korea no longer included that demand in the list of things it wanted in return for giving up its nuclear weapons. . . .
"For decades, the reclusive country . . . has persistently demanded the withdrawal of 28,500 American troops in South Korea, citing their presence as a pretext to justify its development of nuclear weapons. . . . Mr. Moon said North Korea no longer included that demand in the list of things it wanted in return for giving up its nuclear weapons. . . .
"President Trump sent the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, to Pyongyang to meet with Mr. Kim to assess how serious . . . Korea was about negotiating away its nuclear weapons. . . . Mr. Moon said North Korea was already showing a willingness to make concessions.
“'The North Koreans did not present any conditions that the United States could not accept, such as the withdrawal of American troops in South Korea,' Mr. Moon told newspaper publishers in Seoul . . . 'They only talk about an end to hostilities against their country and about getting security guarantees,' he said. 'It’s safe to say that the plans for dialogue between the North and the United States could proceed because that has been made clear.'
"When Mr. Moon’s special envoys met with Mr. Kim in Pyongyang early last month, Mr. Kim said his country would no longer need nuclear weapons if it did not feel 'threatened militarily' and was provided with 'security guarantees.' . . .
"Since the 1990s, North Korean officials have occasionally told the Americans and South Koreans that they could live with an American military presence in the South if Washington signed a peace treaty and normalized ties with the North. Mr. Kim’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, sent Kim Yong-soon, a party secretary, to the United States in 1992 to deliver that message.
"Since the 1990s, North Korean officials have occasionally told the Americans and South Koreans that they could live with an American military presence in the South if Washington signed a peace treaty and normalized ties with the North. Mr. Kim’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, sent Kim Yong-soon, a party secretary, to the United States in 1992 to deliver that message.
"When South Korea’s president at the time, Kim Dae-jung, met with Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang in 2000, the North Korean leader was quoted as saying that keeping American troops in Korea for 'stability in Northeast Asia' even after a reunification was 'not a bad idea, provided that the status and the role of U.S. troops be changed.'
“'It is desirable that U.S. troops stay as a peacekeeping force in Korea, instead of a hostile force against the North,' Kim Jong-il said, according to the book 'Peacemaker,' by Lim Dong-won, who attended the 2000 inter-Korean summit meeting.
"At a forum organized this month by the Seoul-based website Newspim, Mr. Lim said that although North Korea had regularly demanded the withdrawal of American troops, it was important to differentiate its 'propaganda policy' from its 'real policy.' Mr. Lim, a former unification minister of South Korea, said he believed that the North could accept an American military presence and negotiate away its nuclear weapons if it was offered the right incentives. . . .
"Mr. Moon dismissed concerns that the United States might end up recognizing North Korea as a de facto nuclear power in return for a promise from it to freeze its nuclear and missile programs.
“'I don’t think there is any difference between the parties over what they mean by denuclearization,' Mr. Moon said. 'North Korea is expressing a willingness to denuclearize completely.'
"In Seoul’s and Washington’s separate planned summit meetings with Mr. Kim, Mr. Moon said there would be 'no big difficulties' in reaching 'broad agreements in principle' in which North Korea would agree to denuclearize in return for normalized ties with the United States, international aid to help rebuild its economy and a peace treaty to formally end the 1950-53 Korean War. The challenge is in working out a detailed road map to carry out such a deal, he said.
"In Seoul’s and Washington’s separate planned summit meetings with Mr. Kim, Mr. Moon said there would be 'no big difficulties' in reaching 'broad agreements in principle' in which North Korea would agree to denuclearize in return for normalized ties with the United States, international aid to help rebuild its economy and a peace treaty to formally end the 1950-53 Korean War. The challenge is in working out a detailed road map to carry out such a deal, he said.
"Analysts and former negotiators said the countries would face extremely complicated negotiations on how to verify that North Korea was not cheating on its commitment to denuclearize, as it has been accused of in the past, and on when to provide security guarantees and other incentives. Past agreements to denuclearize North Korea all collapsed in disputes over how to verify a freeze of its nuclear activities.
“'As they say, the devil is in details,' Mr. Moon said."
* * * * *
If we didn't have to put Kim's past behavior of untrustworthiness into the mix, this sure sounds like he's trying to get to "Yes" with the United States. And it could be completely true. How do we assess it -- especially with an Asian department at State so decimated by the Trump-Tillerson firings and inaction on replacements? Those seasoned State Department diplomats and the behind-the-scenes researchers and policy-makers are irreplacable. They have to be built up over time.
But what if Kim is more rational than we thought, if he sees the reality of his nation's poverty, and he truly only wants recognition and help? How do you put aside the fact that, within the past two years he has had one of his own relatives assassinated to preserve his own power? How do you trust someone like that?
'Tis a puzzlement. I only wish that we had our old State Department top-to-bottom staff ready to handle this. Instead, we have Trump. And we have Kim -- two men who may be madmen. And it's very telling that, at this point, I'm thinking that Kim might be the more stable, reasonable one.
Ralph
But what if Kim is more rational than we thought, if he sees the reality of his nation's poverty, and he truly only wants recognition and help? How do you put aside the fact that, within the past two years he has had one of his own relatives assassinated to preserve his own power? How do you trust someone like that?
'Tis a puzzlement. I only wish that we had our old State Department top-to-bottom staff ready to handle this. Instead, we have Trump. And we have Kim -- two men who may be madmen. And it's very telling that, at this point, I'm thinking that Kim might be the more stable, reasonable one.
Ralph
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Barbara Bush: "Be kind."
Barbara Bush -- wife of one president, mother of another, and mother of another who ran but lost -- has died at the age of 92. She was beloved by both sides of the political divide, perhaps more than anything, because she always seemed to be the authentic, genuine human being.
She once gave this advice to a friend's teenage kids:
"Be kind. The moments I most regret in my life were the moments when I could have been kinder."
Rest in peace, Barbara.
She once gave this advice to a friend's teenage kids:
"Be kind. The moments I most regret in my life were the moments when I could have been kinder."
Rest in peace, Barbara.
"This case really is about the President."
Rachel Maddow is one terrific tv anchor when it comes to finding the story that others overlook. And then she turns that story into a history lesson, a mystery to be solved, or a funny/interesting turn of plot.
Tuesday night, she took on an exchange between Michael Cohen's lawyers in the New York Court and Judge Kimba Wood. Judge Wood is often described as having a brilliant legal mind or being one of the nation's foremost jurists. She was nominated to become Bill Clinton's Attorney General but had to withdraw when it came out that she had employed domestic workers who were not in the country legally. This was in the late 80s when this was just beginning to become an issue that disqualified people for high profile appointments.
Rachel introduced this segment of her show by saying that the New York investigation and the raid of Michael Cohen's offices and home "really are about the President." This was to explain the scene in the courtroom that day in which Cohen's lawyers were trying to explain to Judge Wood why they were not prepared with their arguments.
One of them explained that he had been concentrating solely on the Russian connections and the campaign finance charges. But they had only just discovered that:
Or maybe not. We don't know at this point what Attachment A is an attachment to. Maybe it's the search warrant. But we don't have that information. I'm writing this on Wednesday afternoon. Perhaps Rachel will have more information on her show tonight. If so, I'll add it below.
If not, it could be that Cohen's lawyers are merely trying to take the heat off Cohen by making it seem "this is about the president." Either way, it's a development worth watching closely.
[Later: Rachel discussed this further but only in the context of the cases, which Cohen handled, that had to do with paying women to keep quite about affairs with Trump. I was expecting that these "five paragraphs" might have to do with fraudulent financial transactions. And that could still be the case.]
There another matter related to the Cohen case that Rachel brought up. The head of the Southern District of New York's federal prosecutor office is headed by a Trump appointee, Jeffrey Berman. But Berman has recused himself on strong advice from the Ethics Division of the Justice Department. No reason was given other than an unspecified conflict of interest. So the case is being conducted by the next in line, a career prosecutor in the department.
We've all breathed sighs of relief that Trump can't interfere because the state offices are not under his direct control -- although he does nominate the head and the senate confirms. But he can't pardon someone for a state crime.
The thing is that Berman is only an interim appointee. Trump has not yet made a formal nomination of him to the senate -- and his interim appointment expires in two and a half weeks. If Trump let's that expire, he could then appoint someone else to that position who would not have to recuse -- and then that person could quash the case against Cohen . . . which really "is about the president"?
So in truth this is not really any more safe from Trump's interference than is the Mueller investigation.d Except that he can't pardon anyone for a state crime.
Ralph
Tuesday night, she took on an exchange between Michael Cohen's lawyers in the New York Court and Judge Kimba Wood. Judge Wood is often described as having a brilliant legal mind or being one of the nation's foremost jurists. She was nominated to become Bill Clinton's Attorney General but had to withdraw when it came out that she had employed domestic workers who were not in the country legally. This was in the late 80s when this was just beginning to become an issue that disqualified people for high profile appointments.
Rachel introduced this segment of her show by saying that the New York investigation and the raid of Michael Cohen's offices and home "really are about the President." This was to explain the scene in the courtroom that day in which Cohen's lawyers were trying to explain to Judge Wood why they were not prepared with their arguments.
One of them explained that he had been concentrating solely on the Russian connections and the campaign finance charges. But they had only just discovered that:
"There are five paragraphs in that Attachment A that deal directly with seeking the papers of the President [that are] in possession of my client. . . . There are five paragraphs there. The case is that."No wonder Cohen's lawyers are bewildered if they didn't know that, among the documents seized in the raids, were papers involving the President of the United States. Well, yes, we all assumed there would be some evidence of work that Cohen did for Trump; but this sounds more like some "papers" that Cohen was keeping in supposed secrecy and safety that are now radioactive.
Or maybe not. We don't know at this point what Attachment A is an attachment to. Maybe it's the search warrant. But we don't have that information. I'm writing this on Wednesday afternoon. Perhaps Rachel will have more information on her show tonight. If so, I'll add it below.
If not, it could be that Cohen's lawyers are merely trying to take the heat off Cohen by making it seem "this is about the president." Either way, it's a development worth watching closely.
[Later: Rachel discussed this further but only in the context of the cases, which Cohen handled, that had to do with paying women to keep quite about affairs with Trump. I was expecting that these "five paragraphs" might have to do with fraudulent financial transactions. And that could still be the case.]
There another matter related to the Cohen case that Rachel brought up. The head of the Southern District of New York's federal prosecutor office is headed by a Trump appointee, Jeffrey Berman. But Berman has recused himself on strong advice from the Ethics Division of the Justice Department. No reason was given other than an unspecified conflict of interest. So the case is being conducted by the next in line, a career prosecutor in the department.
We've all breathed sighs of relief that Trump can't interfere because the state offices are not under his direct control -- although he does nominate the head and the senate confirms. But he can't pardon someone for a state crime.
The thing is that Berman is only an interim appointee. Trump has not yet made a formal nomination of him to the senate -- and his interim appointment expires in two and a half weeks. If Trump let's that expire, he could then appoint someone else to that position who would not have to recuse -- and then that person could quash the case against Cohen . . . which really "is about the president"?
So in truth this is not really any more safe from Trump's interference than is the Mueller investigation.d Except that he can't pardon anyone for a state crime.
Ralph
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
No, it makes no sense at all
Outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has repeatedly said that he doesn't think congress needs to pass a bill protecting Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired "because I don't think the White House is going to fire him."
This was the response Ryan gave when Chuck Todd asked him: "If the Senate passes the bill that's before it now, will you bring it up in the House? It's the same response that Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, also gives.
This was the response Ryan gave when Chuck Todd asked him: "If the Senate passes the bill that's before it now, will you bring it up in the House? It's the same response that Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, also gives.
The problem with that -- besides its staggering naivete -- is that Donald Trump has already tried to order his White House Counsel Don McGahn to get Mueller fired, only to back down when McGahn threatened to resign himself. In addition, there is some evidence that Trump tried again in December -- and he's been talking about it ever since.
So, Republican leadership has got to come up with something better than "I don't think he's going to do it" as an excuse for not acting to prevent it. What are they going to say after he has just gone ahead and done it?
I don't think my house is going to catch on fire, but I carry insurance, just in case it does. And the likelihood of Trump getting rid of Mueller and/or Rosenstein is far greater than my house catching on fire.
No one has offered the slightest hint at why they're actively resisting this insurance. 'We don't think it's necessary' is not as good reason. Has Trump threatened them in some way, if they do? Do they think it will show their bad faith in him? Does the good of the country even matter to them anymore?
McConnell does say that it's impractical, because the president won't sign such a bill. That's not the point. Such a bill, passed by strong majorities in both houses of congress would be a message that might add some weight to deter the president's action. It give some indication for how such action would be regarded by the bodies that have impeachment power over him.
What a sad spectacle the Republican Party has become -- just caving in to being the Trumplican Party. What are they so scared of? Is Trump really that formidable? He does not command that large a slice of the vote, and all his other troubles aren't likely to gain him many more votes, if he even holds on to what he has. His support in special elections hasn't proven helpful: from Roy Moore in Alabama to the oppponent defeated by Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania.
Ralph
I don't think my house is going to catch on fire, but I carry insurance, just in case it does. And the likelihood of Trump getting rid of Mueller and/or Rosenstein is far greater than my house catching on fire.
No one has offered the slightest hint at why they're actively resisting this insurance. 'We don't think it's necessary' is not as good reason. Has Trump threatened them in some way, if they do? Do they think it will show their bad faith in him? Does the good of the country even matter to them anymore?
McConnell does say that it's impractical, because the president won't sign such a bill. That's not the point. Such a bill, passed by strong majorities in both houses of congress would be a message that might add some weight to deter the president's action. It give some indication for how such action would be regarded by the bodies that have impeachment power over him.
What a sad spectacle the Republican Party has become -- just caving in to being the Trumplican Party. What are they so scared of? Is Trump really that formidable? He does not command that large a slice of the vote, and all his other troubles aren't likely to gain him many more votes, if he even holds on to what he has. His support in special elections hasn't proven helpful: from Roy Moore in Alabama to the oppponent defeated by Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania.
Ralph
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Modern urban absurdity
It's been a long time since I ran across any news tidbit with the least bit of humor, until I had this encounter at Chick-Fil-A. Yeah, I know. I boycotted them for years about their anti-gay stance. But they seem to have dropped that now that the Colonel died, so I occasionally venture back.
I can over-look the cutesy spelling of their name; after all these years, it's just become a name. At least it doesn't trigger my snobbism like Starbucks weirdness with cup sizes: short, tall, grande, venti, and the soon to be introduced trenta. I never really liked the flavor of Starbucks coffee anyway.
So, having a yen for a chicken sandwich a few days ago, I went through the drive-through at Chick-Fil-A and asked for a sandwich and a chocolate shake. "Small or large?" came back the disembodied voice over the speaker. Accustomed to choosing "medium," I asked how big is the large? Voice: "We put it in a medium cup."
"OK," I said. "I'll have the chicken sandwich and a large shake in a medium cup." We both chuckled, the Disembodied Voice and I. At least they don't use pretentious words like venti and trenta.
Which started me thinking about these two dyed jn the wool American institutions: Starbucks and Chick-Fil-A. I guess maybe they differ primarily in class appeal. Starbucks is definitely West Coast (Seattle), progressive, urban, elite-ish, while Chick-Fil-A has roots in the deep-South, fundamentalist religion of the Bible Belt and their anti-gay stance of years past.
They could hardly be more different, while both still being American icons. Remember that, in that Great American Novel Moby Dick, Starbuck was the first mate on Captain Ahab's ship in mad pursuit of the white whale. You can't get much more nativist than New England whaling ships of the 19th century. Unless it's the white-suited, Southern "Colonel" Sanders who founded Chick-Fil-A.
Anyway, I thought it makes an interesting commentary on the two directions of Americana. Then I looked up the meaning of "venti" and "trenta." Where did those words come from? It turns out that our prototypical American coffee barista went Italian for its new names. Venti means 20 and trenta means 30 in Italian -- the number of ounces in the two larger cups in the Starbucks menu.
Is Chick-Fil-A going to follow and get size-pretentious? I doubt it. My guess is that for them it's a business decision, not an image ploy. By eliminating medium, more people will pay for large, even in a medium size cup. As I did. Because . . . well, who wants "small?" Even if you were to say it in Italian.
Ralph
I can over-look the cutesy spelling of their name; after all these years, it's just become a name. At least it doesn't trigger my snobbism like Starbucks weirdness with cup sizes: short, tall, grande, venti, and the soon to be introduced trenta. I never really liked the flavor of Starbucks coffee anyway.
So, having a yen for a chicken sandwich a few days ago, I went through the drive-through at Chick-Fil-A and asked for a sandwich and a chocolate shake. "Small or large?" came back the disembodied voice over the speaker. Accustomed to choosing "medium," I asked how big is the large? Voice: "We put it in a medium cup."
"OK," I said. "I'll have the chicken sandwich and a large shake in a medium cup." We both chuckled, the Disembodied Voice and I. At least they don't use pretentious words like venti and trenta.
Which started me thinking about these two dyed jn the wool American institutions: Starbucks and Chick-Fil-A. I guess maybe they differ primarily in class appeal. Starbucks is definitely West Coast (Seattle), progressive, urban, elite-ish, while Chick-Fil-A has roots in the deep-South, fundamentalist religion of the Bible Belt and their anti-gay stance of years past.
They could hardly be more different, while both still being American icons. Remember that, in that Great American Novel Moby Dick, Starbuck was the first mate on Captain Ahab's ship in mad pursuit of the white whale. You can't get much more nativist than New England whaling ships of the 19th century. Unless it's the white-suited, Southern "Colonel" Sanders who founded Chick-Fil-A.
Anyway, I thought it makes an interesting commentary on the two directions of Americana. Then I looked up the meaning of "venti" and "trenta." Where did those words come from? It turns out that our prototypical American coffee barista went Italian for its new names. Venti means 20 and trenta means 30 in Italian -- the number of ounces in the two larger cups in the Starbucks menu.
Is Chick-Fil-A going to follow and get size-pretentious? I doubt it. My guess is that for them it's a business decision, not an image ploy. By eliminating medium, more people will pay for large, even in a medium size cup. As I did. Because . . . well, who wants "small?" Even if you were to say it in Italian.
Ralph
Monday, April 16, 2018
Judge refused to lift temporary stay of Trump's transgender ban
U. S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington barred the federal government from implementing President Trump's ban on transgender members of the military. She ruled instead that, because of the history of discrimination against transgender individuals, they are a protected class and therefore the decision will require a higher level of court review.
As a result of this ruling, the injunction against the ban issued by the court in December will remain in place. She further wrote in her decision that there is a "long and well-recognized" history of discrimination and systemic oppression against transgender people "unrelated to their ability to perform and contribute to society."
"The Court also rules that, because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. Therefore, any attempt to exclude them from military service will be looked at with the highest level of care, and will be subject to the Court's 'strict scrutiny.' This means that before Defendants can implement the Ban, they must show that it was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype," Judge Pechman wrote.
The judge wasn't through with Mr. Trump. She also wrote that the government had "failed to identify even one General or military expert he consulted, despite having been ordered to do so repeatedly." Noting that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was informed of the Trump ban only one day beforehand, she said she "is led to conclude that the Ban was devised by the President, and the President alone."
Way to go, Your Honor.
Ralph
As a result of this ruling, the injunction against the ban issued by the court in December will remain in place. She further wrote in her decision that there is a "long and well-recognized" history of discrimination and systemic oppression against transgender people "unrelated to their ability to perform and contribute to society."
"The Court also rules that, because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. Therefore, any attempt to exclude them from military service will be looked at with the highest level of care, and will be subject to the Court's 'strict scrutiny.' This means that before Defendants can implement the Ban, they must show that it was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype," Judge Pechman wrote.
The judge wasn't through with Mr. Trump. She also wrote that the government had "failed to identify even one General or military expert he consulted, despite having been ordered to do so repeatedly." Noting that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was informed of the Trump ban only one day beforehand, she said she "is led to conclude that the Ban was devised by the President, and the President alone."
Way to go, Your Honor.
Ralph
Sunday, April 15, 2018
News briefs
1. Mueller has evidence that Michael Cohen did go to Prague: McClatchy News Service (very reliable) reports that the Mueller investigation now has evidence placing Trump's fixer in Prague during late August or early September 2016. Cohen has vociferously denied this in the past, going so far as to put out a copy of his passport to "prove" he had never been to Prague. The reported evidence says Cohen flew into Germany, then could cross into the Czech Republic without having his passport stamped.
Why is this important? It had been postulated that this was the Russian connection with the Trump campaign, involving either some monetary payoffs or plans for releasing the Clinton emails. And it is one of the most specific and important claims in the Steele dossier that links the Trump campaign with Russia. The dossier reports that a Kremlin insider had highlighted the importance of Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, in the secret liaison between Trump and the Russian leadership, especially since the departure of Manafort from the campaign. Quoting from the controversial Steele dossier:
"According to the Kremlin insider, Cohen now was heavily engaged in a cover-up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed. In pursuit of this aim, Cohen had met secretly with several Russian Presidential Administration (PA) Legal Department officials in an EU country in August 2016. The immediate issues had been to contain further scandals [involving Paul Manafort and Carter Page]."
Additions to the report in days following identify the meeting city as Prague and gave the name of the Russian official, as well as more specifics about the meeting. Later additions added that topics of discussion had included how cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked on breaking into the Clinton computer files and other issues involving covering up this operation.
Michael Cohen continues to deny that it ever happened, claiming that he was either in New York or in L.A. with his son during the time and has never been to Prague. This is why this is so important. If there is, in fact, evidence of a secret trip to Prague by Cohen, it confirms one more piece of the dossier and blows open the whole Russia collusion thing. And, if he went to Prague on some unrelated or innocent mission, why has he been trying so hard to cover it up? In other words, if the evidence is proven, then his actions point to guilt.
One more thing: since this is being handled, not by Mueller, but by the federal prosecutor's office in New York, firing Mueller can't stop it.
2. The British and French allies joined the U.S. planned attack of missile strikes against Syrian sites associated with its capability to use chemical weapons on its own people. This was in retaliation to proven attacks a week ago in which many civilians died and many more were wounded. A US general briefed reporters later and said that the strikes were "precise, overwhelming, and effective." They hit every target and sent an unmistakable message to the Assad regime that use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, and so far none has been reported. It was in the middle of the night; building targets were work places that had been evacuated in advance. Russia's initial reaction is to call for a UN resolution condemning the US attack, claiming that there was no chemical attack -- or, alternately, that it was staged by the British. Russia's resolution failed to pass in the Security Council.
There is a good argument to be made -- as many in congress have -- against having made this attack. Primarily the question is: what is the overall plan in our Syria policy? We have none. Just before the chemical attack, Trump had told the military he wanted all our troops pulled out of Syria -- within days. Which may have been the signal that let Syria feel they could get away with using chemicals again. They say, correctly, that what we did won't likely accomplish anything. Structures destroyed as easily rebuilt. It will not diminish either Russian or Iranian assistance to the Assad regime. So . . . what was it for?
As the New York Times reported, "even advocates of more aggressive intervention said that the attacks would mean little in the long run without a clear, comprehensive approach."
3. Why did Trump wait almost a week after the Syrian chemical attack before ordering his "punishing" attack? Several reasons, some good, some not. The cynical one is that he wanted to give Russia enough time to get out of the way and to allow Syrian airplanes to be moved in and among Russian planes.
But let's go with the benefit of doubt that there were better reasons. First, Trump was trying to get our allies France and the U.K. on board, which they finally did; so that worked out. Second, there was disagreement within the administration over how massive a strike should be, with Secretary of Defense Mattis wanting less and Trump's new, uber-hawk National Security Adviser John Bolton insisting on a "ruinous" strike. How much did all the rest going on in Trump world affect the decision? -- the Mueller investigation, the exposure of Trump secrets in Michael Cohen's records that are now in the hands of the FBI, as well as the growing number of members of congress demanding that he had to seek a new authorization from congress for any military attack on another country. We are still operating on the authorization to retaliate to the 9/11 attack; and this particular chemical attack on Assad's own people has nothing to do with ISIS or other groups even remotely connected with that. So dealing with any and all of those would take time.
4. The pardoning of Scooter Libby. Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff who was convicted of lying to cover up an attempt to obstruct justice in the destruction of CIA agent Valerie Plame's covert identify -- for political purposes. Trump had never shown any interest. So suddenly he pardons him. It's impossible not to conclude that this was to send a message to his own aides and associates under scrutiny in the Mueller investigation: stay strong; don't talk, and I'll take care of you with a pardon later. In fact, one of Trump's lawyers had been dangling the possibility of pardons to some of them already -- and that is on the list of areas being looked at for a case of obstruction of justice.
5. Another revelation that caused quite a stir this week -- for a few hours -- was the explosive report that Michael Cohen often taped his telephone conversations, which opens the possibility that he has Trump on tape going back years concerning their financial dealings. What could be worse than to have your fixer's recorded conversations with you in the hands of the prosecutor?
6. We also have the request from Michael Cohen to the judge to let him go through the seized documents first and remove lawyer- client-privileged materials. The reaction from most people was to laugh and dismiss such a request. The fact is that most of what Michael Cohen does is not lawyer-work but fix-it work. That is not privileged. Cohen has a practice with essentially one client: Donald Trump. Plus a few others for whom he does similar kind of fix-it work. He seems to be the go-to guy if you need to get a non-disclosure agreement, or if you need a lawyer to get money for you in exchange for a NDA.
7. Oh, yes, Somewhere in there, Paul Ryan dropped the bombshell that he was not going to run again in November. So not only is another Republican seat open, but more importantly the Speaker of the House position is up for grabs, with the #2 Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and #3 Steve Scalise (R-LA) the assumed front runners. But there's always the Freedom Caucus (Tea Party) to contend with. Interesting reminder: for the Speaker, the entire House membership votes. So it's unlikely an ultra-conservative would get a majority with Democrats also casting nearly 45% of the vote. That's if they vote now. If they wait until the new congress convenes in January, and the Democrats have gained the majority, it will be a different picture. Then the Republicans would only be voting on their minority leader, not the Speaker of the House, who would presumable be a Democrat.
What a week. It began with the raid on Cohen's office and home on Monday and ended on Friday with the missile strikes on Syria. In between . . . well, there's all of this, plus a whole lot more.
Ralph
Why is this important? It had been postulated that this was the Russian connection with the Trump campaign, involving either some monetary payoffs or plans for releasing the Clinton emails. And it is one of the most specific and important claims in the Steele dossier that links the Trump campaign with Russia. The dossier reports that a Kremlin insider had highlighted the importance of Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, in the secret liaison between Trump and the Russian leadership, especially since the departure of Manafort from the campaign. Quoting from the controversial Steele dossier:
"According to the Kremlin insider, Cohen now was heavily engaged in a cover-up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed. In pursuit of this aim, Cohen had met secretly with several Russian Presidential Administration (PA) Legal Department officials in an EU country in August 2016. The immediate issues had been to contain further scandals [involving Paul Manafort and Carter Page]."
Additions to the report in days following identify the meeting city as Prague and gave the name of the Russian official, as well as more specifics about the meeting. Later additions added that topics of discussion had included how cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked on breaking into the Clinton computer files and other issues involving covering up this operation.
Michael Cohen continues to deny that it ever happened, claiming that he was either in New York or in L.A. with his son during the time and has never been to Prague. This is why this is so important. If there is, in fact, evidence of a secret trip to Prague by Cohen, it confirms one more piece of the dossier and blows open the whole Russia collusion thing. And, if he went to Prague on some unrelated or innocent mission, why has he been trying so hard to cover it up? In other words, if the evidence is proven, then his actions point to guilt.
One more thing: since this is being handled, not by Mueller, but by the federal prosecutor's office in New York, firing Mueller can't stop it.
2. The British and French allies joined the U.S. planned attack of missile strikes against Syrian sites associated with its capability to use chemical weapons on its own people. This was in retaliation to proven attacks a week ago in which many civilians died and many more were wounded. A US general briefed reporters later and said that the strikes were "precise, overwhelming, and effective." They hit every target and sent an unmistakable message to the Assad regime that use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, and so far none has been reported. It was in the middle of the night; building targets were work places that had been evacuated in advance. Russia's initial reaction is to call for a UN resolution condemning the US attack, claiming that there was no chemical attack -- or, alternately, that it was staged by the British. Russia's resolution failed to pass in the Security Council.
There is a good argument to be made -- as many in congress have -- against having made this attack. Primarily the question is: what is the overall plan in our Syria policy? We have none. Just before the chemical attack, Trump had told the military he wanted all our troops pulled out of Syria -- within days. Which may have been the signal that let Syria feel they could get away with using chemicals again. They say, correctly, that what we did won't likely accomplish anything. Structures destroyed as easily rebuilt. It will not diminish either Russian or Iranian assistance to the Assad regime. So . . . what was it for?
As the New York Times reported, "even advocates of more aggressive intervention said that the attacks would mean little in the long run without a clear, comprehensive approach."
3. Why did Trump wait almost a week after the Syrian chemical attack before ordering his "punishing" attack? Several reasons, some good, some not. The cynical one is that he wanted to give Russia enough time to get out of the way and to allow Syrian airplanes to be moved in and among Russian planes.
But let's go with the benefit of doubt that there were better reasons. First, Trump was trying to get our allies France and the U.K. on board, which they finally did; so that worked out. Second, there was disagreement within the administration over how massive a strike should be, with Secretary of Defense Mattis wanting less and Trump's new, uber-hawk National Security Adviser John Bolton insisting on a "ruinous" strike. How much did all the rest going on in Trump world affect the decision? -- the Mueller investigation, the exposure of Trump secrets in Michael Cohen's records that are now in the hands of the FBI, as well as the growing number of members of congress demanding that he had to seek a new authorization from congress for any military attack on another country. We are still operating on the authorization to retaliate to the 9/11 attack; and this particular chemical attack on Assad's own people has nothing to do with ISIS or other groups even remotely connected with that. So dealing with any and all of those would take time.
4. The pardoning of Scooter Libby. Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff who was convicted of lying to cover up an attempt to obstruct justice in the destruction of CIA agent Valerie Plame's covert identify -- for political purposes. Trump had never shown any interest. So suddenly he pardons him. It's impossible not to conclude that this was to send a message to his own aides and associates under scrutiny in the Mueller investigation: stay strong; don't talk, and I'll take care of you with a pardon later. In fact, one of Trump's lawyers had been dangling the possibility of pardons to some of them already -- and that is on the list of areas being looked at for a case of obstruction of justice.
5. Another revelation that caused quite a stir this week -- for a few hours -- was the explosive report that Michael Cohen often taped his telephone conversations, which opens the possibility that he has Trump on tape going back years concerning their financial dealings. What could be worse than to have your fixer's recorded conversations with you in the hands of the prosecutor?
6. We also have the request from Michael Cohen to the judge to let him go through the seized documents first and remove lawyer- client-privileged materials. The reaction from most people was to laugh and dismiss such a request. The fact is that most of what Michael Cohen does is not lawyer-work but fix-it work. That is not privileged. Cohen has a practice with essentially one client: Donald Trump. Plus a few others for whom he does similar kind of fix-it work. He seems to be the go-to guy if you need to get a non-disclosure agreement, or if you need a lawyer to get money for you in exchange for a NDA.
7. Oh, yes, Somewhere in there, Paul Ryan dropped the bombshell that he was not going to run again in November. So not only is another Republican seat open, but more importantly the Speaker of the House position is up for grabs, with the #2 Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and #3 Steve Scalise (R-LA) the assumed front runners. But there's always the Freedom Caucus (Tea Party) to contend with. Interesting reminder: for the Speaker, the entire House membership votes. So it's unlikely an ultra-conservative would get a majority with Democrats also casting nearly 45% of the vote. That's if they vote now. If they wait until the new congress convenes in January, and the Democrats have gained the majority, it will be a different picture. Then the Republicans would only be voting on their minority leader, not the Speaker of the House, who would presumable be a Democrat.
What a week. It began with the raid on Cohen's office and home on Monday and ended on Friday with the missile strikes on Syria. In between . . . well, there's all of this, plus a whole lot more.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
