President Trump took the occasion of his speech to a meeting of the National Rifle Association in Indianapolis Friday to further isolate the U.S. from our our allies.
The Washington Post reported Trump's announcement before the NRA that he will "un-sign" the global arms pact known as the Arms Trade Treaty. This fits with his aversion to international pacts and world governance, according to the Post, which quoted Trump as saying "We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom."
As the article goes on to explain, this treaty, was originated during the George W. Bush administration, signed by the Obama administration, but Congress has never ratified the treaty. The purpose of the treaty is to set "international rules for sales and transfers of everything from small arms to large planes and ships" to other countries. It "seeks to prevent illicit arms transfers that fuel destructive conflicts, making it harder to conduct weapon sales in violation of arms embargoes."
About 100 countries including U.S. allies in Europe have ratified the treaty. But our lack of ratification puts us in the category with Russia, North Korea, and Syria.
Of course, Trump's invoking the second amendment was red meat politically for his base; and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action spokesman Chris Cox praised the decision, saying it "gave NRA members one more reason to enthusiastically support his presidency" [and presumbaly his re-election.]
If Democrats don't get their act together and handle this right, we could wind up with four more years of Donald J. Trump's destruction of what took generations to build -- a nation based on freedom and values that made us the moral world leader. We've already lost that position under the Trump presidency. But there is more to lose.
Ralph
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Friday, April 26, 2019
FoxNews legal expert: "Trump guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice."
FoxNews legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and friend and adviser to Donald Trump, has said that Trump is guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice. He further said that he is disappointed in Trump's behavior. When Trump asks his aides to lie to cover up his own actions, "that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, and it is condemnable," Napolitano wrote in an op-ed and also said on camera.
This is significant. Napolitano, may not have been 100% blindly loyal to Trump, as say Sean Hannity. But this represents a major break by Napolitano, who has generally been a reliable supporter and friend to Trump. Trump reportedly consulted him about Supreme Court appontments, for example.
And it is Fox News !!! (aka Trump Network).
This is significant. Napolitano, may not have been 100% blindly loyal to Trump, as say Sean Hannity. But this represents a major break by Napolitano, who has generally been a reliable supporter and friend to Trump. Trump reportedly consulted him about Supreme Court appontments, for example.
And it is Fox News !!! (aka Trump Network).
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Urgent need to prepare for Russian interference in 2020? Don't mention it to Trump, Mulvaney told DHS chief Nielsen.
A multiply-sourced New York Times article, by three of the paper's top political reporters, reveals that White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney sought to keep the subject of Russian interference in our elections from being brought up in front of President Trump -- because he equates such discussions with questioning the legitimacy of his election. Quoting from the article:
"In the months before Kirstien Nielsen was forced to resign, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as homeland security secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.
"President Trump's chief of staff told her not to bring it up in front of the president. . . . In a meeting this year, [he] . . . made it clear that Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. . . .
"Ms. Nielsen eventually gave up on her effort to organize a White House meeting of cabinet secretaries to coordinate a strategy to protect next year's elections.
"As a result, the issue did not gain the urgency or widespread attention that a president can command. And it meant that many Americans remain unaware of the latest versions of Russian interference.
"This account of Ms. Nielsen's frustrations was described to the New York Times by three senior Trump administration officials and one former senior administration official, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity. The White House did not provide comment after multiple requests on Tuesday.
"While American intelligence agencies have warned of the dangers of new influence campaigns penetrating the 2020 elections, Mr. Trump and those closest to him have maintained that the effects of Russia's interference in 2016 was overblown. 'You look at what Russia did -- you know, buying some Facebook ads to try to sow dissent and do it -- and it's a terrible thing,' Jared Kushner . . . said during an interview . . . 'But I think the investigations, and all the speculation that's happened for the last two years, has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple of Facebook ads.' . . .
"The opening page of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, a public document compiled by government intelligence agencies . . . warned that 'the threat landscape could look very different in 2020 and future elections.'
"'Russia's social media effort 'will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians,' the report noted. It also predicted that 'Moscow may employ additional influence tool kits -- such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations or manipulating data -- in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions and elections.'
"By comparison, cyberthreats have taken a back seat among security priorities at the White House. . . Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, eliminated the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the White House last year, leaving junior aides to deal with the issue. In January, Ms. Nielsen fumed when 45 percent of her cyberdefense work force was furloughed during the government shutdown.
"Ms. Nielsen grew so frustrated with White House reluctance to convene top-level officials to come up with a governmentwide strategy that she twice pulled together her own meetings of cabinet secretaries and agency heads . . . many of whom later periodically issued public warnings about indicators that Russia was both looking for new ways to interfere and experimenting with techniques in Ukraine and Europe. One senior official described homeland security officials as adamant that the United States government needs to significantly step up its efforts to urge the American public and companies to block foreign influence campaigns. But the department was stymied by the White House's refusal to discuss it, the official said."
* * * * *
"In the months before Kirstien Nielsen was forced to resign, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as homeland security secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.
"President Trump's chief of staff told her not to bring it up in front of the president. . . . In a meeting this year, [he] . . . made it clear that Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. . . .
"Ms. Nielsen eventually gave up on her effort to organize a White House meeting of cabinet secretaries to coordinate a strategy to protect next year's elections.
"As a result, the issue did not gain the urgency or widespread attention that a president can command. And it meant that many Americans remain unaware of the latest versions of Russian interference.
"This account of Ms. Nielsen's frustrations was described to the New York Times by three senior Trump administration officials and one former senior administration official, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity. The White House did not provide comment after multiple requests on Tuesday.
"While American intelligence agencies have warned of the dangers of new influence campaigns penetrating the 2020 elections, Mr. Trump and those closest to him have maintained that the effects of Russia's interference in 2016 was overblown. 'You look at what Russia did -- you know, buying some Facebook ads to try to sow dissent and do it -- and it's a terrible thing,' Jared Kushner . . . said during an interview . . . 'But I think the investigations, and all the speculation that's happened for the last two years, has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple of Facebook ads.' . . .
"The opening page of the Worldwide Threat Assessment, a public document compiled by government intelligence agencies . . . warned that 'the threat landscape could look very different in 2020 and future elections.'
"'Russia's social media effort 'will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians,' the report noted. It also predicted that 'Moscow may employ additional influence tool kits -- such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations or manipulating data -- in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions and elections.'
"By comparison, cyberthreats have taken a back seat among security priorities at the White House. . . Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, eliminated the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the White House last year, leaving junior aides to deal with the issue. In January, Ms. Nielsen fumed when 45 percent of her cyberdefense work force was furloughed during the government shutdown.
"Ms. Nielsen grew so frustrated with White House reluctance to convene top-level officials to come up with a governmentwide strategy that she twice pulled together her own meetings of cabinet secretaries and agency heads . . . many of whom later periodically issued public warnings about indicators that Russia was both looking for new ways to interfere and experimenting with techniques in Ukraine and Europe. One senior official described homeland security officials as adamant that the United States government needs to significantly step up its efforts to urge the American public and companies to block foreign influence campaigns. But the department was stymied by the White House's refusal to discuss it, the official said."
* * * * *
The least bad explanation for the president's willful ignorance about this is the personal one: that he simply cannot tolerate the possibility that his victory in the electoral college was not legitimate. That, in itself, would make him unfit to serve as president, if he cannot put personal pique aside enough to protect our nation from foreign attack. It could even be added as another example, in an impeachment process, of the president's failure to carry out the duties of his office.
If that's not the explanation, then it suggests that Russia has some nefarious hold on the president of the United States -- either money or scandal. I cannot even conjure up an explanation that is not bad. This is a dangerous time, and I take no comfort in the wishful thinking that surely Trump will be defeated at the polls. Not if Russia still wants its 'useful idiot' in the Oval Office -- and Trump has blocked our intelligence agencies from preparing for it.
Ralph
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Incompetence as a defense???
Long-time Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank gets my vote for the column headline of the week:
"Trump talks like Joseph Stalin, but he governs like Homer Simpson."
And then Milbank writes:
"After two years of investigation, Mueller's findings about Team Trump can be roughly summarized as: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct. . . .I'd submit only one addendum: Too dumb to govern."
But is ignorance and incompetence truly a defense? Milbank goes on to list some examples:
"Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times so far, an 'extraordinary record of legal defeat,' the Post reported last week.
"Trump routinely proposes illegal acts to top aides . . . and they ignore him. Though Trump claimed Monday that 'nobody disobeys my orders,' The Post's Aaron Blake assembled a list of 15 instances of aides doing just that.
"His advisers quit and are fired at a record pace, leaving vacancies, placeholders and semi-functioning agencies. . . .
"He spews falsehoods by the thousand and announces policies that don't exist. . . .
"He eschews briefing books and devises policy with a toddler's attention span . . . .
"And the man who claimed he had 'one of the best memories in the world' said more than three dozen times in response to Mueller's [written] questions that he couldn't recall the answer.'
And Milbank concludes with this:
"Does incompetence fit the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors? That's up to the House. I, for one, celebrate Trump's clumsiness. His fondness for authoritarianism and his disdain for the free press and the rule of law would be much more worrisome if he were effective. Trump, with his 'enemy of the people' shtick, might talk like Joseph Stalin, but -- fortunately -- he governs more like Homer Simpson."
"Trump talks like Joseph Stalin, but he governs like Homer Simpson."
And then Milbank writes:
"After two years of investigation, Mueller's findings about Team Trump can be roughly summarized as: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct. . . .I'd submit only one addendum: Too dumb to govern."
But is ignorance and incompetence truly a defense? Milbank goes on to list some examples:
"Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times so far, an 'extraordinary record of legal defeat,' the Post reported last week.
"Trump routinely proposes illegal acts to top aides . . . and they ignore him. Though Trump claimed Monday that 'nobody disobeys my orders,' The Post's Aaron Blake assembled a list of 15 instances of aides doing just that.
"His advisers quit and are fired at a record pace, leaving vacancies, placeholders and semi-functioning agencies. . . .
"He spews falsehoods by the thousand and announces policies that don't exist. . . .
"He eschews briefing books and devises policy with a toddler's attention span . . . .
"And the man who claimed he had 'one of the best memories in the world' said more than three dozen times in response to Mueller's [written] questions that he couldn't recall the answer.'
And Milbank concludes with this:
"Does incompetence fit the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors? That's up to the House. I, for one, celebrate Trump's clumsiness. His fondness for authoritarianism and his disdain for the free press and the rule of law would be much more worrisome if he were effective. Trump, with his 'enemy of the people' shtick, might talk like Joseph Stalin, but -- fortunately -- he governs more like Homer Simpson."
* * * * *
That's a clever, amusing bit of snark from Milbank. But stop and think about what he writes. What a low bar of expectations we have come to accept in the era of this Trump presidency.
The best we can hope for is . . . incompetence?
No, we are better than that. Trumpism is no longer amusing. What is being done to undermine our democratic institutions is alarming. Attention must be paid. Congressional action must be demanded by the people.
No, we are better than that. Trumpism is no longer amusing. What is being done to undermine our democratic institutions is alarming. Attention must be paid. Congressional action must be demanded by the people.
Ralph
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Mueller report, part 2: Trump
Vox's Ezra Klein gives his response to the Mueller report: "The best defense of Trump is still a damning indictment." Excerpts from his article follow:
"The most generous reading of Robert Mueller's report, the one pushed by President Donald Trump's own defenders, is, in fact, profoundly damning. . . .
"The story the report tells is that a foreign government illegally interfered in America's presidential election on Trump's behalf, and rather than treat that incursion as an attack on America's political institutions, Trump treated it transactionally, as a gift to him personally.
"And so, rather than defend America from Russia's attacks, he defended himself from the investigations into Russia's attacks. Rather than see Russia's hacks as a threat to the legitimacy of America's elections, he saw the investigations as a threat to the legitimacy of his own election. So rather than defend the rule of law, Trump subverted it. . . .
"The first half of the Mueller report concludes that 'the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,' that it did so on Trump's behalf, and that the Trump campaign 'expected it would benefit' from Russia's intervention. The report also shows that the Trump organization was in negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow through 2016, and that people in Trump's orbit appeared to have advance warning of the emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. . . .
"What the report does not establish is explicit coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. There is no smoking gun where a Trump confidant asks Russian operatives to hack Clinton's emails -- well, aside from the time Trump asked Putin to do so in public -- or advises them on when to release them.
"Trump received help from the Russians, welcomed that help, and arguably rewarded Russia for that help, but Mueller does not present evidence that Trump or any of his associates helped Russia help him.
"The second half of the Mueller report is about obstruction of justice. Here, the report establishes a pattern of behavior on the part of Trump himself. Trump fires people, threatens to fire people, tries to fire people, and repeatedly lies to the public and to his own staff in an effort to derail the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election.
"Much of this has leaked out before, but seeing Trump's actions recorded cooly, clearly, and chronologically gives the story unexpected force.
"There is the night, for instance, when Trump calls White House counsel Don McGahn and demands he order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire Robert Mueller. 'McGahn did not carry out the direction,' Mueller writes . . . . Trump then demands McGahn write a statement in which he says that Trump never ordered him to fire Mueller. McGahn refuses to lie to cover up the president's request.
"There is the ongoing effort to force Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself, and the eventual request that then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus fire Sessions so he could be replaced by someone who would do more to protect Trump from the investigation. Priebus never carries out the order. . . .
"All in all, there are 10 separate episodes that Mueller examines as possible obstruction of justice. In the report, he makes the decision to leave the final judgment on this to Congress, rather than making a prosecutoreal call himselfi
"It is clear from the text, though, that Mueller believes the charges are serious. 'If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,' he writes. 'Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.'"
[Klein then suggests possible explanations of Trump's behavior and then writes this:]
"The most generous characterization of this is that Trump was so blinded by his own pride and political incentives that he understood an attack on the country's political system as an alliance with his campaign, and so rather than turning on Russia with fury, he turned, with fury, on those who would reveal Russia's role.
"This is the thinking of a man who has never understood that the presidency is bigger than he is, that the role he now occupies requires a larger frame of reference than himself. The myopia this causes him comes up again and again. Notably, there is a section in the report where Trump is heard lamenting that he doesn't have a more corrupt attorney general. 'You're telling me that Bobby and Jack didn't talk about investigations?' he asked. 'Or Obama didn't tell Eric Holder who to investigate?' To Trump, the attorney general's role is to protect the president, not to serve the law.
"The most generous read of the Mueller report's findings does not clear Trump of wrongdoing. Instead, it argues that Trump betrayed the laws he swore to uphold because he thought doing so would protect his reputation, and that it was only the insubordination of his staff that restrained him from yet more egregious acts of criminality.
* * * * *
"The most generous reading of Robert Mueller's report, the one pushed by President Donald Trump's own defenders, is, in fact, profoundly damning. . . .
"The story the report tells is that a foreign government illegally interfered in America's presidential election on Trump's behalf, and rather than treat that incursion as an attack on America's political institutions, Trump treated it transactionally, as a gift to him personally.
"And so, rather than defend America from Russia's attacks, he defended himself from the investigations into Russia's attacks. Rather than see Russia's hacks as a threat to the legitimacy of America's elections, he saw the investigations as a threat to the legitimacy of his own election. So rather than defend the rule of law, Trump subverted it. . . .
"The first half of the Mueller report concludes that 'the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,' that it did so on Trump's behalf, and that the Trump campaign 'expected it would benefit' from Russia's intervention. The report also shows that the Trump organization was in negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow through 2016, and that people in Trump's orbit appeared to have advance warning of the emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. . . .
"What the report does not establish is explicit coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. There is no smoking gun where a Trump confidant asks Russian operatives to hack Clinton's emails -- well, aside from the time Trump asked Putin to do so in public -- or advises them on when to release them.
"Trump received help from the Russians, welcomed that help, and arguably rewarded Russia for that help, but Mueller does not present evidence that Trump or any of his associates helped Russia help him.
"The second half of the Mueller report is about obstruction of justice. Here, the report establishes a pattern of behavior on the part of Trump himself. Trump fires people, threatens to fire people, tries to fire people, and repeatedly lies to the public and to his own staff in an effort to derail the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election.
"Much of this has leaked out before, but seeing Trump's actions recorded cooly, clearly, and chronologically gives the story unexpected force.
"There is the night, for instance, when Trump calls White House counsel Don McGahn and demands he order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire Robert Mueller. 'McGahn did not carry out the direction,' Mueller writes . . . . Trump then demands McGahn write a statement in which he says that Trump never ordered him to fire Mueller. McGahn refuses to lie to cover up the president's request.
"There is the ongoing effort to force Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself, and the eventual request that then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus fire Sessions so he could be replaced by someone who would do more to protect Trump from the investigation. Priebus never carries out the order. . . .
"All in all, there are 10 separate episodes that Mueller examines as possible obstruction of justice. In the report, he makes the decision to leave the final judgment on this to Congress, rather than making a prosecutoreal call himselfi
"It is clear from the text, though, that Mueller believes the charges are serious. 'If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,' he writes. 'Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.'"
[Klein then suggests possible explanations of Trump's behavior and then writes this:]
"The most generous characterization of this is that Trump was so blinded by his own pride and political incentives that he understood an attack on the country's political system as an alliance with his campaign, and so rather than turning on Russia with fury, he turned, with fury, on those who would reveal Russia's role.
"This is the thinking of a man who has never understood that the presidency is bigger than he is, that the role he now occupies requires a larger frame of reference than himself. The myopia this causes him comes up again and again. Notably, there is a section in the report where Trump is heard lamenting that he doesn't have a more corrupt attorney general. 'You're telling me that Bobby and Jack didn't talk about investigations?' he asked. 'Or Obama didn't tell Eric Holder who to investigate?' To Trump, the attorney general's role is to protect the president, not to serve the law.
"The most generous read of the Mueller report's findings does not clear Trump of wrongdoing. Instead, it argues that Trump betrayed the laws he swore to uphold because he thought doing so would protect his reputation, and that it was only the insubordination of his staff that restrained him from yet more egregious acts of criminality.
* * * * *
Klein's argument, generally, seems to reduce it all to Trump's narcissism and his self-interests -- not that there are any ties to Russia or any blackmail holds on him by Russia. I'm not yet convinced, although I do think Klein's analysis helps to clarify how it all could be explained by Trump's state of mind.
One thing is sure. Team Trump was premature in calling this a victory for Trump. I just saw a headline of David Brooks' column: "It's not the collusion; it's the corruption." That is inescapable . . . and will become more obvious as time goes on.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
