President Trump has made it quite clear by clinging to a continued close relationship with Saudi Arabia in the light of their assassination of a renowned journalist: the U.S. is up for sale.
Trump's response, when it was first mentioned that the Saudi government, perhaps the Crown Prince himself, might be responsible, was to say some words of lament about the murder, along with sanctions to some individuals, but then to quickly add: "But I would hate to lose the great deals we have with them."
Trump (falsely) claims the Saudis will buy $400 billion worth of military equipment from us in the coming years. He further claims that they have already agreed to a deal to buy over $100 billion worth. In fact, they have only stated an intention to buy that much. Actual signed deals amount to less than 15% of that amount, but that is not the main point here.
The point is that President Trump is all about the deal, and everything is transactional and shortsighted. He has no concept of -- and no appreciation for -- the moral high ground that represents to the world the values of democracy, equality, and freedom. He couldn't care a whit whether the US is a moral leader and example of idealism for the world, a lead that demands that its allies follow the rule of law and the principles of humanitarianism.
He has a very simple rule: Do we win? And do we get the best price? And often: how does this affect my personal/family finances? Although he denies it now, he is previously on video bragging about the deals he has with the Saudis, how much real estate they have bought from him or invested in his projects. We just don't know the extent; but the Saudis have money, Trump always needs money to finance his real estate empire, and as president Trump has valuable things to exchange for money and no scruples.
He doesn't care if workers are inhumanely exploited; he doesn't care if a murder is involved, as long as we're not charged with it.
This, folks, is the amoral, narcissistic sociopath we've put in the Oval Office.
Ralph
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Thursday, November 22, 2018
One path for Mueller to take in light of controversial new Acting AG's role
Frank Figliuzzi is a former FBI Assistant Director who is frequently a guest commentator on MSNBC news programs. He's very impressive in the sharpness and depth of his knowledge and reasoning about the present state of the FBI and its relationship to President Trump.
A recent article in Newsweek by Brendon Cole featured Figliuzzi's theory of what Robert Mueller may do -- or have already prepared to do -- given Trump's new appointee as Acting Attorney General, who has clearly been chosen for the job primarily to do Trump's bidding on Mueller and his investigation and report.
Here are some excerpts of that article:
A recent article in Newsweek by Brendon Cole featured Figliuzzi's theory of what Robert Mueller may do -- or have already prepared to do -- given Trump's new appointee as Acting Attorney General, who has clearly been chosen for the job primarily to do Trump's bidding on Mueller and his investigation and report.
Here are some excerpts of that article:
* * * * *
" . . . . It is not clear what role [Matt] Whitaker will play in overseeing the inquiry, . . . Democrats fear that hostility to the probe might spur him to sabotage it . . .
" . . . But Figliuzzi told the anchor of The 11th Hour, Brian Williams, he had 'a theory' that Mueller has already indicated what he is going to do. 'I think he's ready to indict some folks and through those indictments will tell the story of what he's found against the president.
"'I'm not saying he's indicting the president [Figliuzzi continued]. I'm saying there's a middle ground where he tells us the story, locks it into the court system by indicting others, then files a report with Whitaker,' he added."
Author Cole says that Figliuzzi "suggested that Mueller knows his days are numbered and so would act soon. I think the Whitaker appointment steps up the timeline and I think perhaps if Mueller sticks to the strategy of telling us the story through indictments . . . that he'll speak to us soon, very soon, with additional indictments, perhaps that tell the story of a corrupt president."
* * * * *
Well, that makes more sense to me than anything else I've heard or read. And I've seen Figliuzzi on TV enough times to be very impressed by his thinking and convinced that he knows what he's talking about. Not that he's informed by Mueller -- but that he knows enough of how someone of Mueller's caliber in the prosecutorial role would think and act in this situation.
I feel much better about the preservation and ultimate public availability of the results of the Mueller investigation.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Ralph
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Endangering the earth
Paraphrased from The New Yorker's Jane Mayer:
California is on fire. Monster storms are flooding our southern coasts. The polar ice caps are melting, faster and faster. Temperatures in some densely populated areas like Pakistan are soaring to 120 degrees.
Meanwhile, President Trump is about to nominate Andrew Wheeler as permanent head of the EPA. Wheeler is a climate change denier and a former lobbyist for the coal industry.
California is on fire. Monster storms are flooding our southern coasts. The polar ice caps are melting, faster and faster. Temperatures in some densely populated areas like Pakistan are soaring to 120 degrees.
Meanwhile, President Trump is about to nominate Andrew Wheeler as permanent head of the EPA. Wheeler is a climate change denier and a former lobbyist for the coal industry.
Will Trump change his #2 for 2020?
Since the bad news for the Trump Party in the midterm election, President Trump has been asking around about keeping Mike Pence as his running mate for 2020. Or, more specifically, he's been asking, "Is Mike Pence loyal?"'
When the question was posed to Trump by a reporter recently, with Pence standing nearby, Trump did this little song and dance of turning to Pence and asking him point blank: "Mike, will you be my running mate?" Pence stood up, raised his hand and nodded -- and Trump pretended to be very pleased.
But, according to recent New York Times reporting by Maggie Haberman and Katie Rogers, in private it's a different story. "In one conversation after another he has asked aides and advisers a pointed question: Is Mike Pence loyal?"
Haberman and Rogers continue: "Mr. Trump has repeated the question so many times that he has alarmed some of his advisers. The president has not openly suggested dropping Mr. Pence from the ticket . . . but the advisers say those kinds of questions usually indicate that he has grown irritated with someone. . . .
"Within the White House, most people he has talked to have assured the president that Mr. Pence has been a committed soldier . . . . But some advisers, primarily outside the White House, have suggested to him that while Mr. Pence remains loyal, he may have used up his utility. [They] argue that Mr. Trump has forged his own relationship with evangelical voters, and that what he might benefit from more is a running mate who could help him with women voters, who disapprove of him in large numbers. . . .
"Mr. Trump has kept close counsel about whether he is seriously considering making a change to the ticket, or simply poll-testing advisers as the campaign begins."
The authors also spoke with Dan Pfeiffer, former communications director for President Obama, who said that such questions are usually raised when contemplating a re-election campaign; but a change "almost never happens." Pfeiffer added that the electoral significance of the VP nominee "is one of the most overrated things in U.S. politics, particularly in a re-election, which is almost always a referendum" on the president.
Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, points out that, although Mr. Pence may have served as "a validating figure for white evangelicals, recent research showed that 7 out of 10 white evangelicals who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party would prefer Mr. Trump over any alternative Republican candidate in 2020."
And presumably that would include Pence himself, if he should prove to be disloyal enough to run against Trump in a primary.
Which brings us to Nikki Haley, former popular governor of South Carolina, who has served quite credibly as Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations -- a post that she has previously announced she will be leaving at the end of this year.
To a large extent, it seems a waste of time to even be discussing this -- given the great unknown of what bad news Robert Mueller's report will have for Trump. But, assuming that he survives politically to run in 2020, I think Nikki Haley would be his best choice as a running mate.
She's smart, politically savvy, ambitious -- and she's proven that she can exist in the Trump world without selling her soul or becoming corrupt herself. That might not be possible in a closer relationship, such as Vice President; and she might just be too willing to speak her own mind for Trump to tolerate.
But it could be a formidable ticket. And I worry about it.
Ralph
When the question was posed to Trump by a reporter recently, with Pence standing nearby, Trump did this little song and dance of turning to Pence and asking him point blank: "Mike, will you be my running mate?" Pence stood up, raised his hand and nodded -- and Trump pretended to be very pleased.
But, according to recent New York Times reporting by Maggie Haberman and Katie Rogers, in private it's a different story. "In one conversation after another he has asked aides and advisers a pointed question: Is Mike Pence loyal?"
Haberman and Rogers continue: "Mr. Trump has repeated the question so many times that he has alarmed some of his advisers. The president has not openly suggested dropping Mr. Pence from the ticket . . . but the advisers say those kinds of questions usually indicate that he has grown irritated with someone. . . .
"Within the White House, most people he has talked to have assured the president that Mr. Pence has been a committed soldier . . . . But some advisers, primarily outside the White House, have suggested to him that while Mr. Pence remains loyal, he may have used up his utility. [They] argue that Mr. Trump has forged his own relationship with evangelical voters, and that what he might benefit from more is a running mate who could help him with women voters, who disapprove of him in large numbers. . . .
"Mr. Trump has kept close counsel about whether he is seriously considering making a change to the ticket, or simply poll-testing advisers as the campaign begins."
The authors also spoke with Dan Pfeiffer, former communications director for President Obama, who said that such questions are usually raised when contemplating a re-election campaign; but a change "almost never happens." Pfeiffer added that the electoral significance of the VP nominee "is one of the most overrated things in U.S. politics, particularly in a re-election, which is almost always a referendum" on the president.
Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, points out that, although Mr. Pence may have served as "a validating figure for white evangelicals, recent research showed that 7 out of 10 white evangelicals who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party would prefer Mr. Trump over any alternative Republican candidate in 2020."
And presumably that would include Pence himself, if he should prove to be disloyal enough to run against Trump in a primary.
Which brings us to Nikki Haley, former popular governor of South Carolina, who has served quite credibly as Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations -- a post that she has previously announced she will be leaving at the end of this year.
To a large extent, it seems a waste of time to even be discussing this -- given the great unknown of what bad news Robert Mueller's report will have for Trump. But, assuming that he survives politically to run in 2020, I think Nikki Haley would be his best choice as a running mate.
She's smart, politically savvy, ambitious -- and she's proven that she can exist in the Trump world without selling her soul or becoming corrupt herself. That might not be possible in a closer relationship, such as Vice President; and she might just be too willing to speak her own mind for Trump to tolerate.
But it could be a formidable ticket. And I worry about it.
Ralph
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Judge restores reporter's White House pass
For the back story, see Friday, November 16th post, numbered paragraph 3. President Trump didn't like CNN's Jim Acosta's challenging questions. Instead of answering, Trump called him rude and a "terrible person." Subsequently the White House press office took away Acosta's White House press credentials, even though he is CNN's chief White House correspondent.
CNN sued based on first amendment rights and lack of due process. A judge heard arguments for a preliminary injunction, found in favor of CNN on the narrow grounds of due process, and ordered the credentials to be restored pending a full trial of the case.
So President Trump lost this round in his fight with the press. But the basic question remains: does the president get to decide which journalists can have access to the White House? Trump claims that it is his right to choose who gets to come to WH news briefings and has easy access to come in to talk with WH staff.
In other words, whether Trump's actions violate the constitutional mandate for a free press remains to be litigated. But Acosta's and CNN's right to be there was at least temporarily restored, which bodes well for the larger question.
The Founding Fathers deemed an unfettered free press vital enough in a democracy that they called it the "Fourth Estate," meaning that it is the fourth power along with the legislative, administrative, and judicial powers. It is the free voice of the people.
To imagine what it would be like without a free press: go to Russia -- or just imagine that right-wing radio and Fox's Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson were our only news media.
Ralph
CNN sued based on first amendment rights and lack of due process. A judge heard arguments for a preliminary injunction, found in favor of CNN on the narrow grounds of due process, and ordered the credentials to be restored pending a full trial of the case.
So President Trump lost this round in his fight with the press. But the basic question remains: does the president get to decide which journalists can have access to the White House? Trump claims that it is his right to choose who gets to come to WH news briefings and has easy access to come in to talk with WH staff.
In other words, whether Trump's actions violate the constitutional mandate for a free press remains to be litigated. But Acosta's and CNN's right to be there was at least temporarily restored, which bodes well for the larger question.
The Founding Fathers deemed an unfettered free press vital enough in a democracy that they called it the "Fourth Estate," meaning that it is the fourth power along with the legislative, administrative, and judicial powers. It is the free voice of the people.
To imagine what it would be like without a free press: go to Russia -- or just imagine that right-wing radio and Fox's Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson were our only news media.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
