The Supreme Court last week gave decisions on two cases involving gerrymandering for partisan purposes. SCOTUS has previously decided against states that draw their voting district boundaries based on race and the voting advantage the party in power gets from that.
These cases in question involve not race -- which has already been ruled illegal -- but partisan politics. i.e, whether the party in power in the state can redraw voting districts simply for their own re-election advantage. Wisconsin's districts in question were drawn by a Republican majority, while Maryland's were by a Democratic majority.
In both cases, SCOTUS punted on the larger question of whether using partisan political factors as the motive for redistricting is unconstitutional -- what has been termed "letting representatives choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives.
That is the big question SCOTUS sidestepped. Rather than deal with the big question, they found procedural reasons to reject hearings on these two cases. In one, it claimed that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they suffered harm and sent it back to the lower court; in the other, the reason was lack of standing to sue.
However, the decisions left the constitutional question open for other challenges.
To be clear: By avoiding the big question, the court DID NOT RULE THAT IT'S ALL RIGHT to use partisan factors; they just did not rule on that larger question, choosing to put it off for another day, a better case, or whatever.
In fact, the case of North Carolina is in the pipeline and might perhaps be what they have their sights set on for the more comprehensive ruling.
It's complicated. Even if they should rule against allowing partisanship in redrawing district boundaries, decisions would need to set up some sort of standards by which to judge how much is too much. And how it would be proved, how would it be policed, etc. Only if the court simply ruled that redistricting must be done by some independent, non-partisan group could those questions be ignored.
Critics, who have fought against gerrymandering and see it as a key tool used by those who would suppress voting rights of minorities, were disappointed. No doubt -- elections can be won or lost simply through just such tactics of the party in power. The hope was that SCOTUS would issue a sweeping ruling that would make changes in time for the upcoming election. That didn't happen, but perhaps there's still time for the 2020 presidential contest.
Ralph
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Friday, June 22, 2018
Trump's reversal maybe not all it seemed
Yesterday, after President Trump had signed an executive order to stop the forced separation of children from their parents who had come in illegally, we at first celebrated it as Trump having "given in" to the outrage and pressure from all corners, including congress itself.
But, hold on. Let's read the fine print. The Executive Order about keeping families together includes such language as "within the law and resources available." That's an awful lot of wiggle room.
In addition, they have been forced to admit they have no plan for reuniting those children already separated from their parents. It says something like: "will no longer separate . . . " What about the 2,000 already scattered around the country -- like the 300 who were taken to New York City to a facility there in the middle of the night, without even notifying the Mayor of NYC? He was outraged.
I have no idea how many, but in some cases the mothers have already been deported without being reunited with their children. This is criminal. Some of these parents have done nothing except walk across the river into this country, after being denied entry at the border crossings -- even when they were asking for refugee asylum status. At most, that is a misdemeanor and should not incur incarceration, the factor they used to justify separating the children from their parents.
We are not through with this, no matter how pious Trump is now trying to portray himself.
Ralph
But, hold on. Let's read the fine print. The Executive Order about keeping families together includes such language as "within the law and resources available." That's an awful lot of wiggle room.
In addition, they have been forced to admit they have no plan for reuniting those children already separated from their parents. It says something like: "will no longer separate . . . " What about the 2,000 already scattered around the country -- like the 300 who were taken to New York City to a facility there in the middle of the night, without even notifying the Mayor of NYC? He was outraged.
I have no idea how many, but in some cases the mothers have already been deported without being reunited with their children. This is criminal. Some of these parents have done nothing except walk across the river into this country, after being denied entry at the border crossings -- even when they were asking for refugee asylum status. At most, that is a misdemeanor and should not incur incarceration, the factor they used to justify separating the children from their parents.
We are not through with this, no matter how pious Trump is now trying to portray himself.
Ralph
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Veteran GOP strategist quits party, writes scathing critique
Veteran GOP strategist, Steve Schmidt, former adviser in the Bush White House, has renounced his membership in the Republican party with a series of scathing tweets, calling it "corrupt, indecent, and immoral" and saying it has become "fully Trump's party."
". . . is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party's greatest leaders.
"This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken.
"The first step to a season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say this as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.
"On Ronald Reagan's grave are these words: 'I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.' He would be ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest while this corrupt government establishes internment camps for babies. Everyone of these complicit leaders will carry this shame through history. Their legacies will be ones of well earned ignominy. They have disgraced their country and brought dishonor to the Party of Lincoln.
"I have spent much of my life working in GOP politics. I have always believed that both parties were two of the most important institutions to the advancement of human freedom and dignity in the history of the world. Today the GOP has become a danger to our democracy and values.
"This independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party."
* * * * *
Citing a few Republican governors as exceptions, in a series of tweets, Schmidt says the GOP:". . . is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party's greatest leaders.
"This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken.
"The first step to a season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say this as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.
"On Ronald Reagan's grave are these words: 'I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.' He would be ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest while this corrupt government establishes internment camps for babies. Everyone of these complicit leaders will carry this shame through history. Their legacies will be ones of well earned ignominy. They have disgraced their country and brought dishonor to the Party of Lincoln.
"I have spent much of my life working in GOP politics. I have always believed that both parties were two of the most important institutions to the advancement of human freedom and dignity in the history of the world. Today the GOP has become a danger to our democracy and values.
"This independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party."
* * * * *
I've long admired Steve Schmidt, even when he was working for "the other party." He speaks in very strong language, but he is not a hot-head. He chooses his words carefully and conveys what he means.
Coming from him, this is the strongest statement yet to come forth in this time of horror enacted simply on the whim of a president too easily influenced by one or two advisers -- Stephen Miller, to be specific -- and by certain Fox News broadcasters who toady and feed him his lines.
It's not reassuring to hear reports from journalists' inside sources that say those around the president are very selective in pictures they show him and reports the give him so as not to upset him with conflicting evidence that calls his policy into question. That makes them complicit enablers of the worst sort.
Schmidt is right. This is a dangerous time for our democracy. Not for Democrats, but for our democracy. This way heads to autocracy, if not even fascism.
Ralph
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Trump gives in, ends separations.
Pressure from fellow Republicans -- but most especially from public outrage -- grew so strong that Trump finally gave in and signed an executive order ending the separation of children from their parents at the border. They will now be detained together, probably at military bases.
Growing pressure included: (1) Microsoft workers calling on their own management to end the contract it has with ICE for data analysis. They said they could not continue to do work that benefited such an inhumane policy; (2) American and United airlines, which have contracts to fly government personnel, asked the government not to fly kids on their airlines that had been separated from their parents as part of the zero tolerance policy; (3) a number of creative people involved in television shows aired on the Fox channel protested Fox's 24-hour, positive coverage of the border situation, including support for Trump's separation policy.
Ralph
Growing pressure included: (1) Microsoft workers calling on their own management to end the contract it has with ICE for data analysis. They said they could not continue to do work that benefited such an inhumane policy; (2) American and United airlines, which have contracts to fly government personnel, asked the government not to fly kids on their airlines that had been separated from their parents as part of the zero tolerance policy; (3) a number of creative people involved in television shows aired on the Fox channel protested Fox's 24-hour, positive coverage of the border situation, including support for Trump's separation policy.
Ralph
Ivanka Trump's deafening silence on child separations
First daughter and Special Assistant to the President, Ivanka Trump has women's and children's issues as part of her work portfolio. Yet, she has said nothing publicly about the forcible, horrific separation of parents and children in our border detention centers.
First Lady Melania Trump, former First Ladies Laura Bush and Michelle Obama, and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have all called the policy inhumane, immoral, or cruel.
How can Ivanka Trump remain silent? A mother with small children herself, who posts adorable pics of herself with her children on social media. I'd like to think she's trying behind the scenes to change her father's actions. But this is really another example against nepotism -- she should resign in protest, if she can't influence him on this. But the father-daughter relationship makes that extra difficult.
Ralph
First Lady Melania Trump, former First Ladies Laura Bush and Michelle Obama, and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have all called the policy inhumane, immoral, or cruel.
How can Ivanka Trump remain silent? A mother with small children herself, who posts adorable pics of herself with her children on social media. I'd like to think she's trying behind the scenes to change her father's actions. But this is really another example against nepotism -- she should resign in protest, if she can't influence him on this. But the father-daughter relationship makes that extra difficult.
Ralph
A new Democratic star rises in Texas
Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) is one Democratic congressman who went to the Mexico border, met and talked with people who had been separated. He gave an impassioned plea about what is being done by our own immigration service under the zero tolerance policy recently introduced by the Trump administration.
O'Rourke said: "This is inhumane. I'd like to say it's un-American, but it's happening right now in America. We will be judged for what we do or what we fail to do now. This is not just on the Trump administration -- this is on all of us."
O'Rourke is the Democratic nominee running against Ted Cruz for his senate seat in November. Some may say he's grandstanding for political gain. No. I saw an interview with O'Rourk before this all started. He's passionate about human rights and justice and is compassionate to his core. He articulate, authentic, principled, passionate, real and . . . very likeable. One might even say he's the anti-Cruz,
The RealClearPolitics average of polls give Cruz a 9 point advantage (49.5 t0 30.5). A more recent poll by a Democratic pollster showed the spread at 49 to 43, only a 6 point margin for Cruz. O'Rourk has declined to accept money from PACs. As the incumbent, Cruz obviously started with greater name recognition; O'Rourk has been steadily gaining as he becomes better known.
Ralph
O'Rourke said: "This is inhumane. I'd like to say it's un-American, but it's happening right now in America. We will be judged for what we do or what we fail to do now. This is not just on the Trump administration -- this is on all of us."
O'Rourke is the Democratic nominee running against Ted Cruz for his senate seat in November. Some may say he's grandstanding for political gain. No. I saw an interview with O'Rourk before this all started. He's passionate about human rights and justice and is compassionate to his core. He articulate, authentic, principled, passionate, real and . . . very likeable. One might even say he's the anti-Cruz,
The RealClearPolitics average of polls give Cruz a 9 point advantage (49.5 t0 30.5). A more recent poll by a Democratic pollster showed the spread at 49 to 43, only a 6 point margin for Cruz. O'Rourk has declined to accept money from PACs. As the incumbent, Cruz obviously started with greater name recognition; O'Rourk has been steadily gaining as he becomes better known.
Ralph
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
The whole world is watching what America is doing to families at the border
Word is beginning to come in of the reaction in Europe and other parts of the world as they watch the television images of our inhumane actions in separating children, including babies, from their mothers.
Donald Trump is claiming loudly -- and completely falsely -- that they are just obeying "a Democratic law" and calling on Democrats to change it. This is one of the biggest lies Trump has told yet in terms of what we can actually see with our own eyes.
First, there is no law that says children have to be taken from their parents just for coming across the border illegally. Yes, when there is criminal activity and the parent is put into the criminal justice system for trial, that's different. By law, children cannot be held in federal prisons, so if the parent is imprisoned then the child must go somewhere else. What they began doing recently is different. Simply crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, which ordinarily would not result in incarceration and separation.
But Trump, spurred on by his sadistic, weird domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, insists on a zero tolerance policy, meaning anyone coming across the border other than at official crossing points is automatically charged with a criminal offence -- even those coming to apply for amnesty. Hence, the separation of the children. One woman told Congressman O'Rourk that she was coming for amnesty but was turned away at the official crossing point, without any kind of evaluation; so she crossed illegally, was apprehended and her child taken away.
The hardliners (Kelly, Miller, Sessions, Trump) have abandoned any kind of discretionary prosecution. There new policy is to prosecute everyone who crosses illegally, even asylum seekers. Gen. Kelly said, some time back when they were just starting the zero tolerance that it would be a deterrent. But apparently that purpose has been superseded by Trump's using it against the Democrats as pressure to vote Republican on immigration bills.
Approximately 2,000 children have been separated from parents in the last six weeks. Yes, in some facilities, their physical needs are being met by trained professionals. But it's the psychic trauma that is most concerning. For some, this will have life-long effects, shaping basic trust and self-confidence in a group of children already traumatized by what they have been through before they get to our borders.
First Lady Melanie Trump's spokesperson put out a tweet saying that Ms. Trump calls on both sides to find a solution to the immigration problem, and she emphasized that our approach should be to "govern with heart." Former First Lady Laura Bush published an op-ed in the Washington Post calling the separation of families "cruel and immoral." Michelle Obama sent out a tweet, seconding Ms. Bush's position, saying, "Truth transcends parties."
Sec. Hillary Clinton also weighted in: "Despite what this White House claims, separating families in not mandated by law. That is an outright lie, and it's incumbent on all of us -- journalists and citizens alike -- to call it just that."
As far as blaming it on the Democrats, President Obama and his administration struggled with this problem, including the occasional example (which Trump tries to present as widespread and putting us in danger) of gangs and criminals gaming the system by bringing children as props (or even as human trafficking). But ultimately, the Obama administration declined to go the same route of mass separations.
No, it's very clear. Trump never fails to blame someone else for his problems. What he really means is that, unless the Democrats vote for the Republican version of legislation, this whole child separation problem is their fault. Mind you, Trump himself changed the policy, while denying that there is a policy; and he could end it in an instant if he wanted to.
But he is playing politics in the worst sort of way -- by traumatizing children. His own Secretary of Homeland Security, charged with this responsibility has, according to New York Times reporting, had angry discussions with the White House about this and even threatened to resign.
Sen. Lindsey Graham -- along with a number of other Republicans in congress -- have called for it to stop. Sen. Graham has even stated on camera that "President Trump could end this" if he wanted to.
He obviously doesn't want to. He is showing just how ruthless he is willing to be -- using innocent children as pawns in his political strategy.
Ralph
Donald Trump is claiming loudly -- and completely falsely -- that they are just obeying "a Democratic law" and calling on Democrats to change it. This is one of the biggest lies Trump has told yet in terms of what we can actually see with our own eyes.
First, there is no law that says children have to be taken from their parents just for coming across the border illegally. Yes, when there is criminal activity and the parent is put into the criminal justice system for trial, that's different. By law, children cannot be held in federal prisons, so if the parent is imprisoned then the child must go somewhere else. What they began doing recently is different. Simply crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, which ordinarily would not result in incarceration and separation.
But Trump, spurred on by his sadistic, weird domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, insists on a zero tolerance policy, meaning anyone coming across the border other than at official crossing points is automatically charged with a criminal offence -- even those coming to apply for amnesty. Hence, the separation of the children. One woman told Congressman O'Rourk that she was coming for amnesty but was turned away at the official crossing point, without any kind of evaluation; so she crossed illegally, was apprehended and her child taken away.
The hardliners (Kelly, Miller, Sessions, Trump) have abandoned any kind of discretionary prosecution. There new policy is to prosecute everyone who crosses illegally, even asylum seekers. Gen. Kelly said, some time back when they were just starting the zero tolerance that it would be a deterrent. But apparently that purpose has been superseded by Trump's using it against the Democrats as pressure to vote Republican on immigration bills.
Approximately 2,000 children have been separated from parents in the last six weeks. Yes, in some facilities, their physical needs are being met by trained professionals. But it's the psychic trauma that is most concerning. For some, this will have life-long effects, shaping basic trust and self-confidence in a group of children already traumatized by what they have been through before they get to our borders.
First Lady Melanie Trump's spokesperson put out a tweet saying that Ms. Trump calls on both sides to find a solution to the immigration problem, and she emphasized that our approach should be to "govern with heart." Former First Lady Laura Bush published an op-ed in the Washington Post calling the separation of families "cruel and immoral." Michelle Obama sent out a tweet, seconding Ms. Bush's position, saying, "Truth transcends parties."
Sec. Hillary Clinton also weighted in: "Despite what this White House claims, separating families in not mandated by law. That is an outright lie, and it's incumbent on all of us -- journalists and citizens alike -- to call it just that."
As far as blaming it on the Democrats, President Obama and his administration struggled with this problem, including the occasional example (which Trump tries to present as widespread and putting us in danger) of gangs and criminals gaming the system by bringing children as props (or even as human trafficking). But ultimately, the Obama administration declined to go the same route of mass separations.
No, it's very clear. Trump never fails to blame someone else for his problems. What he really means is that, unless the Democrats vote for the Republican version of legislation, this whole child separation problem is their fault. Mind you, Trump himself changed the policy, while denying that there is a policy; and he could end it in an instant if he wanted to.
But he is playing politics in the worst sort of way -- by traumatizing children. His own Secretary of Homeland Security, charged with this responsibility has, according to New York Times reporting, had angry discussions with the White House about this and even threatened to resign.
Sen. Lindsey Graham -- along with a number of other Republicans in congress -- have called for it to stop. Sen. Graham has even stated on camera that "President Trump could end this" if he wanted to.
He obviously doesn't want to. He is showing just how ruthless he is willing to be -- using innocent children as pawns in his political strategy.
Ralph
Monday, June 18, 2018
Sessions' deplorable misuse of Bible verse to justify separating children and parents
Finally the Trump administration has gone too far even for his evangelical base in this new policy of forcibly separating children from their immigrant parents at the border, even those who are applying for asylum.
AG Jeff Sessions tried to justify it by quoting from the Bible about obeying the law because God has ordained the law. Matthew Schlimm, a professor at Dubuque Theological Seminary, said: "It makes my blood boil." It takes that verse completely out of the context of a passage that's about loving others, including your enemies.
Schlimm notes that the Bible has similarly been used to justify slavery and Nazism. "Sessions follows the pattern of history. What's chilling is to think that we again live in such morally deranged times."
Let there be no doubt. Trump is lying to blame this on Democrats who won't vote to fund his wall. This is a policy change -- they even named it "zero tolerance" -- that was instituted by the Trump administration. Trump could change it in a moment if he wanted to. Instead, in his amoral, inhumane, transactional way, he's using these kids as bargaining chips to get something he wants -- his way about immigration and his big, beauitiful Wall.
Ralph
AG Jeff Sessions tried to justify it by quoting from the Bible about obeying the law because God has ordained the law. Matthew Schlimm, a professor at Dubuque Theological Seminary, said: "It makes my blood boil." It takes that verse completely out of the context of a passage that's about loving others, including your enemies.
Schlimm notes that the Bible has similarly been used to justify slavery and Nazism. "Sessions follows the pattern of history. What's chilling is to think that we again live in such morally deranged times."
Let there be no doubt. Trump is lying to blame this on Democrats who won't vote to fund his wall. This is a policy change -- they even named it "zero tolerance" -- that was instituted by the Trump administration. Trump could change it in a moment if he wanted to. Instead, in his amoral, inhumane, transactional way, he's using these kids as bargaining chips to get something he wants -- his way about immigration and his big, beauitiful Wall.
Ralph
Trump, the boastful salesman -- or chump?
As the New York Times' Max Fisher wrote:
"Almost any talks between the United States and North Korea, while those talks are ongoing, significantly reduce the risk of an accidental or unintended slide into war, which could kill millions. . . . That's a big deal."
I agree. And this may be the first time I've ever wanted to say something positive about Donald Trump. And then he has to go and spoil it by claiming too much.
On arriving back from Singapore, he said: "Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea."
How so? Yes, the risk has been reduced. But we got here on the whim of one unpredictable, erratic leader (Trump) in response to the decades-long preparation of nuclear strength as a bargain chip by a despotic killer of his own people (Kim).
As the New York Times points out: Trump made this claim, even though Kim "has not given up any of his warheads or missiles, not dismantled any of his 141 known sites devoted to the production or use of weapons of mass destruction other than blowing up a test site." Remember, Kim also has chemical and biological weapons -- not even mentioned in this negotiation.
The Times continues: "The critical question is what comes next? . . . whether the follow-on negotiations can close the gap between the United States and North Korea on the definition of denuclearization and lay out specific, verifiable steps that Pyongyang will take to reduce the threat posed by its nuclear weapons.
Bruce Klingner, a Korea expert at the Heritage Foundation . . . said the joint statement signed in Singapore did not even commit North Korea to do as much as it promised in deals negotiated in 1994 and 2005 that it later failed to live up to."
So let's hope that Trump is right in his assessment of Kim's motives. Or that Trump is the consummate salesman that he boasts to be, when he tried to seduce Kim by the glories of the real estate possibilities of North Korean beaches as the ideal site for condos. Beautiful condos; the most beautiful hotels in the world. Right there where they fire all those cannons from now.
Listen, if it works, I won't complain -- will even give Trump some credit (though not, I think, a Nobel Peace Prize). Doing something on a whim isn't the criteria for that award; it should be a sustained commitment to a long-range value of true world peace, especially when achieved at some sacrifice. Trump wants a Nobel as a self-aggrandizing trophy and because . . . well, they gave Obama one, didn't they?
Let's hope the on-a-whim plan works. So far, Kim seems to be the wily one and Trump the naive, fawning rube. Maybe it's all part of Trump's plan.
Ya think?
Ralph
"Almost any talks between the United States and North Korea, while those talks are ongoing, significantly reduce the risk of an accidental or unintended slide into war, which could kill millions. . . . That's a big deal."
I agree. And this may be the first time I've ever wanted to say something positive about Donald Trump. And then he has to go and spoil it by claiming too much.
On arriving back from Singapore, he said: "Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea."
How so? Yes, the risk has been reduced. But we got here on the whim of one unpredictable, erratic leader (Trump) in response to the decades-long preparation of nuclear strength as a bargain chip by a despotic killer of his own people (Kim).
As the New York Times points out: Trump made this claim, even though Kim "has not given up any of his warheads or missiles, not dismantled any of his 141 known sites devoted to the production or use of weapons of mass destruction other than blowing up a test site." Remember, Kim also has chemical and biological weapons -- not even mentioned in this negotiation.
The Times continues: "The critical question is what comes next? . . . whether the follow-on negotiations can close the gap between the United States and North Korea on the definition of denuclearization and lay out specific, verifiable steps that Pyongyang will take to reduce the threat posed by its nuclear weapons.
Bruce Klingner, a Korea expert at the Heritage Foundation . . . said the joint statement signed in Singapore did not even commit North Korea to do as much as it promised in deals negotiated in 1994 and 2005 that it later failed to live up to."
So let's hope that Trump is right in his assessment of Kim's motives. Or that Trump is the consummate salesman that he boasts to be, when he tried to seduce Kim by the glories of the real estate possibilities of North Korean beaches as the ideal site for condos. Beautiful condos; the most beautiful hotels in the world. Right there where they fire all those cannons from now.
Listen, if it works, I won't complain -- will even give Trump some credit (though not, I think, a Nobel Peace Prize). Doing something on a whim isn't the criteria for that award; it should be a sustained commitment to a long-range value of true world peace, especially when achieved at some sacrifice. Trump wants a Nobel as a self-aggrandizing trophy and because . . . well, they gave Obama one, didn't they?
Let's hope the on-a-whim plan works. So far, Kim seems to be the wily one and Trump the naive, fawning rube. Maybe it's all part of Trump's plan.
Ya think?
Ralph
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Trump told four lies about the DoJ's IG report in one short Fox News interview.
Vox.com's Zach Beauchamp spots four lies that President Trump told, just within one short news segment on Fox News. This was about the long-awaited Inspector
General's (IG) report on the Department of Justice and FBI's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email case.
Lie #1. Trump says the FBI was working against him during the campaign. "They were plotting against my election."
Report: "We did not find . . . evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed." When confronted with this by the interviewer, Trump simply claimed that the "no bias conclusion" was irresponsible.
Lie #2: Trump claims that the IG "blew it" by concluding the FBI wasn't biased.
Report: The question of FBI bias is thoroughly examined in depth and repeated throughout the report. This included examples of anti-Trump text messages sent by one FBI official to a friend. But, after looking carefully, there is no evidence that this affected the decisions or actions of this same official in the investigation. This was a conclusion reached after a examining a tremendous amount of evidence. In fact, at one point, this same official recommended an even more rigorous examination of the Clinton email case than others did.
Lie #3: Trump claims that the IG report "completely exonerates" him. "I did nothing wrong . . . no collusion, no obstruction. . . . I think the Mueller investigation has been totally discredited."
Report: The IG report did not present any conclusions about the Trump-Russia ties. That was not it's focus. It covered only the appropriateness of the FBI's conduct in 2016. It couldn't conclude anything about obstruction of justice because it doesn't cover the time Trump has been in office. For the same reason, it couldn't discredit Mueller's investigation, which didn't begin until May 2017.
Lie $#4: Trump said that James Comey is a criminal. "What he did was criminal . . . so bad in terms of the Constitution, in terms of the well-being of our country." [An aside: When before has Donald Trump ever been concerned with the Constitution? Certainly not when he's acting on his own instincts.]
Report: Inspector General Horowitz, an eminently respected, senior officer of the Justice Department, was harshly critical of some of Comey's actions as FBI director. "In key moments, . . . [he] chose to deviate from the FBI's and the Department's established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decision-making." But there is no evidence in the report that Comey violated any kind of criminal statute, let alone acted unconstitutionally.
In fact, the report concludes that Comey's decisions during the Clinton email investigation,"while questionable, came from his professional judgment and were not the result of any malign intent." The report further said that Comey's decision not to recommend prosecution of Clinton was the result of the evidence and his understanding of the proof required to pursue prosecution under the relevant statutes."
The criticism of Comey has largely come as the result of the way he handled the public statements about the closing -- and then the reopening -- of the case shortly before the election; not about the conduct of the investigation itself.
In a New York Times article, reporter Peter Baker sums up this aspect of the report: "To the extent that the F.B.I. and its director at the time, James B. Comey, did anything wrong in 2016 . . . it was to the disadvantage of Mr. Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton."
Of course, what's really at play here with Trump is that he is trying to use this to his advantage politically. Whether he is factually correct is of no concern to him. It's the public image and message that is all-important -- specifically, the message to his base voters. The fact that a majority of Americans now see him as a chronic liar does not seem to bother him at all. It's all just a-historical, transactional tactics to gain your aim of the moment.
In fact, he made an astonishing admission just a couple of days ago. When confronted with one of his lies by a reporter, his defense was that, well, it wasn't like it was sworn testimony. In other words, the president is admitting that we shouldn't necessarily take what he says as the truth. Many legal observers differ with that. When the president of the United States says something to the public, in public, we should be able to assume he's not lying -- unless it's to conceal some matter of national security.
Stop just a minute though. Contemplate what it means to have a president about whom one would need to write this blog post. And that's true of almost every day and every issue.
Our allies -- and our adversaries -- know this too. We can be sure that the adversaries will take advantage of it.
Ralph
General's (IG) report on the Department of Justice and FBI's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email case.
Lie #1. Trump says the FBI was working against him during the campaign. "They were plotting against my election."
Report: "We did not find . . . evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed." When confronted with this by the interviewer, Trump simply claimed that the "no bias conclusion" was irresponsible.
Lie #2: Trump claims that the IG "blew it" by concluding the FBI wasn't biased.
Report: The question of FBI bias is thoroughly examined in depth and repeated throughout the report. This included examples of anti-Trump text messages sent by one FBI official to a friend. But, after looking carefully, there is no evidence that this affected the decisions or actions of this same official in the investigation. This was a conclusion reached after a examining a tremendous amount of evidence. In fact, at one point, this same official recommended an even more rigorous examination of the Clinton email case than others did.
Lie #3: Trump claims that the IG report "completely exonerates" him. "I did nothing wrong . . . no collusion, no obstruction. . . . I think the Mueller investigation has been totally discredited."
Report: The IG report did not present any conclusions about the Trump-Russia ties. That was not it's focus. It covered only the appropriateness of the FBI's conduct in 2016. It couldn't conclude anything about obstruction of justice because it doesn't cover the time Trump has been in office. For the same reason, it couldn't discredit Mueller's investigation, which didn't begin until May 2017.
Lie $#4: Trump said that James Comey is a criminal. "What he did was criminal . . . so bad in terms of the Constitution, in terms of the well-being of our country." [An aside: When before has Donald Trump ever been concerned with the Constitution? Certainly not when he's acting on his own instincts.]
Report: Inspector General Horowitz, an eminently respected, senior officer of the Justice Department, was harshly critical of some of Comey's actions as FBI director. "In key moments, . . . [he] chose to deviate from the FBI's and the Department's established procedures and norms and instead engaged in his own subjective, ad hoc decision-making." But there is no evidence in the report that Comey violated any kind of criminal statute, let alone acted unconstitutionally.
In fact, the report concludes that Comey's decisions during the Clinton email investigation,"while questionable, came from his professional judgment and were not the result of any malign intent." The report further said that Comey's decision not to recommend prosecution of Clinton was the result of the evidence and his understanding of the proof required to pursue prosecution under the relevant statutes."
The criticism of Comey has largely come as the result of the way he handled the public statements about the closing -- and then the reopening -- of the case shortly before the election; not about the conduct of the investigation itself.
In a New York Times article, reporter Peter Baker sums up this aspect of the report: "To the extent that the F.B.I. and its director at the time, James B. Comey, did anything wrong in 2016 . . . it was to the disadvantage of Mr. Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton."
Of course, what's really at play here with Trump is that he is trying to use this to his advantage politically. Whether he is factually correct is of no concern to him. It's the public image and message that is all-important -- specifically, the message to his base voters. The fact that a majority of Americans now see him as a chronic liar does not seem to bother him at all. It's all just a-historical, transactional tactics to gain your aim of the moment.
In fact, he made an astonishing admission just a couple of days ago. When confronted with one of his lies by a reporter, his defense was that, well, it wasn't like it was sworn testimony. In other words, the president is admitting that we shouldn't necessarily take what he says as the truth. Many legal observers differ with that. When the president of the United States says something to the public, in public, we should be able to assume he's not lying -- unless it's to conceal some matter of national security.
Stop just a minute though. Contemplate what it means to have a president about whom one would need to write this blog post. And that's true of almost every day and every issue.
Our allies -- and our adversaries -- know this too. We can be sure that the adversaries will take advantage of it.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
