PolitiFact fact-checked controversial statements by Tim Kaine and Mike Pence on Tuesday night's debate. Of the ones they checked, Kaine scored 79% either "true" or "mostly true." The combined score of those two categories for Pence was 31%.
I want to add that Kaine's stretches were mostly hyperbole and exaggerations, while Pence told some huge whoppers that have previously been debunked by fact-checkers, like saying the Clinton Foundation uses only 10% of its donations for charity and that the Clintons themselves have gotten millions of dollars from foreign donors. Those are black and white, proven lies that Pence chose to repeat before 34 million tv viewers.
I want to add another comment about those who thought Pence had a more presidential demeanor in the debate, where Kaine was more focused on being the Trump attack dog and fact checker. I agree that Pence has a more presidential demeanor than Donald Trump. But so does Kaine. We've seen the Kaine presidential demeanor before. A dignity and calm leadership that come from deep inside him. Just go back and read about his handling of the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting when he was governor. Obama himself couldn't have been better as disaster-comforter-in-chief.
Ralph
Thursday, October 6, 2016
"The Real Scandal in Trump Paying No Taxes" -- Robert Reich
Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley, former Labor Secretary in Bill Clinton's cabinet, and Hillary Clinton supporter, had this piece on Huffington Post.
"Ordinary investors in Trump’s business empire saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, bondholders got pennies on the dollar, and scores of contractors went unpaid. But Trump got a bonanza because the tax code allows “net operating losses” to cancel out taxable income in future years. And the bankruptcy code allows wealthy people to stiff the people they owe by reorganizing their debts under Chapter 11.
"Trump didn’t do anything illegal. Real estate losses are notoriously easy to create. Trump bought buildings with borrowed money. He could then deduct interest paid on that debt. On top of that, he could take depreciation deductions, even when his real estate was appreciating in value. Presto! Trump claimed almost a billion dollars of losses that would cancel his gigantic income gains for years to come. . . .
"The real scandal here is that Trump and other hugely wealthy people can get away with this, and do so all the time. It’s just another way the system has been rigged — by rich people who buy off politicians to alter tax, bankruptcy, and other laws and regulations to their advantage, just like Donald Trump has done.
“As a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal in July 2015. “As a businessman, I need that.”
"Trump isn’t and was never a smart businessman. He was and is smart at gaming the system. There’s a difference."
* * * * *
"According to the New York Times, Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 tax returns — which could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for 18 years [you can offset income up to $50 million each year]. The loss stemmed from Trump’s investments in the early 1990s."Ordinary investors in Trump’s business empire saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, bondholders got pennies on the dollar, and scores of contractors went unpaid. But Trump got a bonanza because the tax code allows “net operating losses” to cancel out taxable income in future years. And the bankruptcy code allows wealthy people to stiff the people they owe by reorganizing their debts under Chapter 11.
"Trump didn’t do anything illegal. Real estate losses are notoriously easy to create. Trump bought buildings with borrowed money. He could then deduct interest paid on that debt. On top of that, he could take depreciation deductions, even when his real estate was appreciating in value. Presto! Trump claimed almost a billion dollars of losses that would cancel his gigantic income gains for years to come. . . .
"The real scandal here is that Trump and other hugely wealthy people can get away with this, and do so all the time. It’s just another way the system has been rigged — by rich people who buy off politicians to alter tax, bankruptcy, and other laws and regulations to their advantage, just like Donald Trump has done.
“As a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal in July 2015. “As a businessman, I need that.”
"Trump isn’t and was never a smart businessman. He was and is smart at gaming the system. There’s a difference."
* * * * *
Reich didn't go as far as others have in calling Trump the "Real Welfare Queen." Republicans love to deride the "takers" of society who benefit from the taxes paid by the rest of us (Romney's "47%," Reagan's "Welfare Queen"). But now people are beginning to realize how much "welfare" wealthy people and corporations get -- in tax loopholes, tax incentives, carry-forward deductions that help create paper "losses" that ultimately let the wealthy avoid taxes, just as Trump has done here.
Trump and his Three Stooges (Giuliani, Christie, Gingrich) want us to trust Trump to fix the broken system because he understands it better than anyone (a "genius" according to the Stooges), having mastered how to work it for himself. The key there is "Trust Trump." Why would anyone trust him to fix a system that he has admitted to using "brilliantly" to benefit himself, to the detriment of ordinary taxpayers?
Well, he says, "I'm working for You now; back then I was working for myself." Why should we believe he would make this shift when he proves every day that words coming out of his mouth have a shelf life that lasts only until saying the opposite will benefit him more? Truth has no meaning to him; utility in advancing his own cause is the only criterion in the Trump lexicon.
Ralph
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Second thoughts on the response to the VP debate
Here on the morning after the Vice Presidential debate, pundits' reaction are falling into two camps. Those who are judging it on the content of what was said think Kaine did the better job. He landed blow after blow against Trump, with Pence failing (or unable) to defend Trump. This group also focuses on number of lies and debunked distortions that Pence made -- which will be the subject of post-debate discussion.
On the other hand, those who judged it more on process and demeanor praised Pence's calm, presidential demeanor -- especially in what that conveyed to Republican party elites who are so uneasy voting for Trump. And those people were critical of Kaine's aggressively interrupting Pence and his seeming unease.
I empathize with Kaine, because what got him so animated and led to his interrupting was the need for a fact-checker on Pence. Kaine was trying to get in all that fact- checking as well as making the positive points about Clinton's policy positions. Bottom line for me: While the Pence-favoring ones have a point about demeanor, I will stick with the content-oriented truth-teller, Tim Kaine.
The bottom line, politically, is that Vice Presidential debates rarely make any difference in the course of the race. There is another Clinton-Trump debate coming up five days later, and this one will be forgotten by then.
Ralph
On the other hand, those who judged it more on process and demeanor praised Pence's calm, presidential demeanor -- especially in what that conveyed to Republican party elites who are so uneasy voting for Trump. And those people were critical of Kaine's aggressively interrupting Pence and his seeming unease.
I empathize with Kaine, because what got him so animated and led to his interrupting was the need for a fact-checker on Pence. Kaine was trying to get in all that fact- checking as well as making the positive points about Clinton's policy positions. Bottom line for me: While the Pence-favoring ones have a point about demeanor, I will stick with the content-oriented truth-teller, Tim Kaine.
The bottom line, politically, is that Vice Presidential debates rarely make any difference in the course of the race. There is another Clinton-Trump debate coming up five days later, and this one will be forgotten by then.
Ralph
Thoughts on the VP debate
Despite the RNC's posting a claim, more than an hour before the debate began, that Mike Pence had won the debate (and then quickly taking it down), there was no clear cut, big winner. Those who lean right will say that Mike Pence did; and those that lean left will say that Tim Kaine did. Put me in the latter group. Here are some particulars:
1. Tim Kaine was slightly, annoyingly too wound up and began right away interrupting Pence. I understood that he just couldn't sit there and wait while Pence repeatedly misstated facts, made wild, false accusations, and veered way off course. I was having trouble with that in Pence too. But Kaine seems to have put off even the anchors on MSNBC by his behavior.
2. That aside, Kaine gave crisp, concise answers that were fact based and accurate. He was obviously extremely well-prepared. He was challenging -- repeatedly calling on Pence to defend what Trump had said. And, if the debate were judged on points they made and on crispness of arguments, then Kaine won hands down.
3. Pence had the harder job of defending Donald Trump. He didn't even try, really. Mostly he tried to get by making generalized statements praising Trump but avoiding real commentary about anything substantive he has said. And he repeatedly denied that Trump has said what fact-checkers (plus everyone's memory) will easily prove.
4. Differences in policy were often highlighted, especially at the end when the topic turned to abortion. Each man was not just stating talking points, then, but was sharing his deeply held beliefs and his obvious, thoughtful consideration over time of the subject. Both men are personally opposed to it, both have deeply held religious beliefs that oppose it; but Kaine puts his own beliefs aside and doesn't think any one religious belief should be imposed as public policy. Pence, every bit as personally and religiously committed to opposing abortion, thinks that it should be public policy to "protect the vulnerable" and that "includes the unborn."
5. The moderator, Elaine Quijano of CBSN, did not, in my opinion, do a very good job. She was unable to keep them from talking over each other and even talking over her. At times, all three of them were talking at the same time. I also thought she tried to cover too much ground with her questions, with far too little time on each to allow them to get beyond talking points -- except at the end on abortion
6. In the post-debate days, Pence is not going to look as good as some think he does tonight; because much of the news will be about his denials of Trump's saying what he actually said -- and, in one notable case, even denying that he himself had said what he said. MSNBC anchors were extolling their view that Pence is playing the long game, that he established himself tonight as the leading conservative contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2020. Thus, as one said, Ted Cruz was the big loser.
7. In the end, I go with the policy positions and the clear, concise answers that Kaine gave. I though he ran circles around Pence and scored point after point by challenging Pence to defend Trump -- and he couldn't. Except for being overly aggressive and interrupting, I thought Kaine's performance was stellar. I just wish he had had twice as much time to rebut Pence's false claims about Clinton. I'm puzzled to find the MSNBC anchors in disagreement with that opinion.
Ralph
PS: A quote from Josh Marshall's TPM discussion of the debate:
"Kaine landed lots of punches on Donald Trump, while Pence left Trump largely undefended. Pence got in very few hits on Clinton, but not many. Whether Pence made a tacit decision to abandon his boss or simply wasn't up to the challenge I don't know. But the net effect was that he let Kaine land punch after punch on Trump, largely undefended. That's really all that matters."
1. Tim Kaine was slightly, annoyingly too wound up and began right away interrupting Pence. I understood that he just couldn't sit there and wait while Pence repeatedly misstated facts, made wild, false accusations, and veered way off course. I was having trouble with that in Pence too. But Kaine seems to have put off even the anchors on MSNBC by his behavior.
2. That aside, Kaine gave crisp, concise answers that were fact based and accurate. He was obviously extremely well-prepared. He was challenging -- repeatedly calling on Pence to defend what Trump had said. And, if the debate were judged on points they made and on crispness of arguments, then Kaine won hands down.
3. Pence had the harder job of defending Donald Trump. He didn't even try, really. Mostly he tried to get by making generalized statements praising Trump but avoiding real commentary about anything substantive he has said. And he repeatedly denied that Trump has said what fact-checkers (plus everyone's memory) will easily prove.
4. Differences in policy were often highlighted, especially at the end when the topic turned to abortion. Each man was not just stating talking points, then, but was sharing his deeply held beliefs and his obvious, thoughtful consideration over time of the subject. Both men are personally opposed to it, both have deeply held religious beliefs that oppose it; but Kaine puts his own beliefs aside and doesn't think any one religious belief should be imposed as public policy. Pence, every bit as personally and religiously committed to opposing abortion, thinks that it should be public policy to "protect the vulnerable" and that "includes the unborn."
5. The moderator, Elaine Quijano of CBSN, did not, in my opinion, do a very good job. She was unable to keep them from talking over each other and even talking over her. At times, all three of them were talking at the same time. I also thought she tried to cover too much ground with her questions, with far too little time on each to allow them to get beyond talking points -- except at the end on abortion
6. In the post-debate days, Pence is not going to look as good as some think he does tonight; because much of the news will be about his denials of Trump's saying what he actually said -- and, in one notable case, even denying that he himself had said what he said. MSNBC anchors were extolling their view that Pence is playing the long game, that he established himself tonight as the leading conservative contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2020. Thus, as one said, Ted Cruz was the big loser.
7. In the end, I go with the policy positions and the clear, concise answers that Kaine gave. I though he ran circles around Pence and scored point after point by challenging Pence to defend Trump -- and he couldn't. Except for being overly aggressive and interrupting, I thought Kaine's performance was stellar. I just wish he had had twice as much time to rebut Pence's false claims about Clinton. I'm puzzled to find the MSNBC anchors in disagreement with that opinion.
Ralph
PS: A quote from Josh Marshall's TPM discussion of the debate:
"Kaine landed lots of punches on Donald Trump, while Pence left Trump largely undefended. Pence got in very few hits on Clinton, but not many. Whether Pence made a tacit decision to abandon his boss or simply wasn't up to the challenge I don't know. But the net effect was that he let Kaine land punch after punch on Trump, largely undefended. That's really all that matters."
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
New info about the 3 pages of Trump's tax return
On her MSNBC news show last night, Rachel Maddow had the two New York Times reporters who broke the story of receiving those three pages of Donald Trump's 1995 tax return that showed an operating loss of almost a billion dollars. The pages were mailed anonymously to one of the reporters, Susanne Craig, from an address at Trump Tower.
Fellow Times reporter David Barstow flew to Florida to get the authenticity of the pages verified by Trump's former accountant who had prepared the tax return. He was able to authenticate these pages, including an explanation for why the numbers did not quite line up: the computer software he used to fill out the forms did not make room for a 9 digit number in the loss column, so he had to enter that line using his old typewriter.
Barstow also explained that this $915,729,293 loss did not necessarily all occur in one year, since this kind of loss is allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years letting the loss offset future profits. Craig and Barstow had found other evidence that Trump probably had big losses in 1991 and 1993, which is more plausible since the real estate market had big losses in the early 1990s but had recovered by 1995. They also said that tax experts found no evidence of illegalities in what could be deduced from just those three pages; but it would obviously require studying the entire return to clear the overall tax return. Don't feel too bad for Trump; that near-billion-dollar loss probably is, in large part, paper losses, such as depreciation -- even when the properties are appreciating. That's legal in real estate law.
Trump and his surrogates are spinning this as a "brilliant" use of the tax code legally for Trump's benefit. But the Clinton campaign is emphasizing that this is the problem: the law does allow this kind of advantage to wealthy people, and real estate dealers in particular. The average Americans, in contrast, have no such loopholes to allow them to avoid paying taxes.
Ralph
Fellow Times reporter David Barstow flew to Florida to get the authenticity of the pages verified by Trump's former accountant who had prepared the tax return. He was able to authenticate these pages, including an explanation for why the numbers did not quite line up: the computer software he used to fill out the forms did not make room for a 9 digit number in the loss column, so he had to enter that line using his old typewriter.
Barstow also explained that this $915,729,293 loss did not necessarily all occur in one year, since this kind of loss is allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years letting the loss offset future profits. Craig and Barstow had found other evidence that Trump probably had big losses in 1991 and 1993, which is more plausible since the real estate market had big losses in the early 1990s but had recovered by 1995. They also said that tax experts found no evidence of illegalities in what could be deduced from just those three pages; but it would obviously require studying the entire return to clear the overall tax return. Don't feel too bad for Trump; that near-billion-dollar loss probably is, in large part, paper losses, such as depreciation -- even when the properties are appreciating. That's legal in real estate law.
Trump and his surrogates are spinning this as a "brilliant" use of the tax code legally for Trump's benefit. But the Clinton campaign is emphasizing that this is the problem: the law does allow this kind of advantage to wealthy people, and real estate dealers in particular. The average Americans, in contrast, have no such loopholes to allow them to avoid paying taxes.
Ralph
And then there was this . . Trump Foundation gets shut down order from New York Attorney General
Starting with his disastrous debate performance last Monday, this new week has just gotten worse and worse for Donald Trump. One big difference is that the media has done a 180 degree reversal in how they cover him. Before, he was their cash-cow for upping their ratings; and all the coverage tended to portray his oddity and his outrageousness in a lighthearted, bemused way that, cumulatively, tended to "normalize" it all. Now, suddenly, they're covering him as a loser, with one scandal after another to expose.
Last week, following the debate, Trump kept the Miss Universe controversy going for another five days by constantly talking about it -- to his detriment. Then there was the report about violating the U.S. embargo of Cuba by sending an operative down there to look into opening a Trump casino. Then there was the New York Times blockbuster about him declaring a near-one-billion dollar operating loss in 1995 that would allow him to pay zero federal income tax for the next 18 years.
Over the weekend, one of Trump's Three Stooges (Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich) got into the bad-week act as well. Rudi Giuliani was the invited keynote speaker at the "40 Under 40" awards dinner at the Waldorf in New York, sponsored by the Commercial Finance Association. He was supposed to talk about "Leadership," but instead he veered off into his Trump talking points, including derogatory comments about immigration and the "Mexicans in the kitchen." It was so shocking that the Association's CEO sent out a note of apology the next day to those attending. Rudi has always been an excitable, ridiculous, yapping attack dog. But lately he's gotten worse. Either being a Trump stooge is going to his head, or his head is not quite all together these days.
Also, over the weekend, David Farenthold, the Washington Post reporter, who has been doggedly investigating the Trump Foundation, exposed the fact that the Foundation had never registered or been credentialed as a charity or non-profit foundation by the State of New York Charities Bureau.
That brings us up to Monday this week. The New York Attorney General released a letter that orders the Trump Foundation to "immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fund-raising activities in New York" and, within 15 days, to file all delinquent financial reports with the New York Charities Bureau. The failure to do so within 15 days "shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Attorney General Schneiderman had previously opened an investigation against Trump University back in June, which is ongoing. At that time he called that venture a "straight-up fraud."
Also on Monday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit ruled unanimously that Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), Trump's VP running mate, had no authority to withhold funding from refugee resettlement organizations that are guaranteed aid under federal law. Pence had tried to deny aid to Syrian refugees in his state of Indiana, in an attempt to keep them from settling there. He cannot legally do that. This will surely come up in the debate tomorrow night between the two VP candidates.
All of this adds up to big time trouble for the Trump campaign. It also marks a definite change in tone of the reporting. No more presenting Trump as an entertaining clown to some, an inspiring strong-man to his base. The media is less gullible, less easily played by Trump, since he conned them into giving him 30 minutes of free live tv coverage of the opening of his new hotel in Washington a couple of weeks ago. (See ShrinkRap, Sept 17). The tv anchors were furious, and I thought then that this was going to be a turning point in the Trump coverage.
So here we are. And it's only Monday of this second very-bad-week for Donald Trump.
Ralph
Last week, following the debate, Trump kept the Miss Universe controversy going for another five days by constantly talking about it -- to his detriment. Then there was the report about violating the U.S. embargo of Cuba by sending an operative down there to look into opening a Trump casino. Then there was the New York Times blockbuster about him declaring a near-one-billion dollar operating loss in 1995 that would allow him to pay zero federal income tax for the next 18 years.
Over the weekend, one of Trump's Three Stooges (Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich) got into the bad-week act as well. Rudi Giuliani was the invited keynote speaker at the "40 Under 40" awards dinner at the Waldorf in New York, sponsored by the Commercial Finance Association. He was supposed to talk about "Leadership," but instead he veered off into his Trump talking points, including derogatory comments about immigration and the "Mexicans in the kitchen." It was so shocking that the Association's CEO sent out a note of apology the next day to those attending. Rudi has always been an excitable, ridiculous, yapping attack dog. But lately he's gotten worse. Either being a Trump stooge is going to his head, or his head is not quite all together these days.
Also, over the weekend, David Farenthold, the Washington Post reporter, who has been doggedly investigating the Trump Foundation, exposed the fact that the Foundation had never registered or been credentialed as a charity or non-profit foundation by the State of New York Charities Bureau.
That brings us up to Monday this week. The New York Attorney General released a letter that orders the Trump Foundation to "immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fund-raising activities in New York" and, within 15 days, to file all delinquent financial reports with the New York Charities Bureau. The failure to do so within 15 days "shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Attorney General Schneiderman had previously opened an investigation against Trump University back in June, which is ongoing. At that time he called that venture a "straight-up fraud."
Also on Monday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit ruled unanimously that Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), Trump's VP running mate, had no authority to withhold funding from refugee resettlement organizations that are guaranteed aid under federal law. Pence had tried to deny aid to Syrian refugees in his state of Indiana, in an attempt to keep them from settling there. He cannot legally do that. This will surely come up in the debate tomorrow night between the two VP candidates.
All of this adds up to big time trouble for the Trump campaign. It also marks a definite change in tone of the reporting. No more presenting Trump as an entertaining clown to some, an inspiring strong-man to his base. The media is less gullible, less easily played by Trump, since he conned them into giving him 30 minutes of free live tv coverage of the opening of his new hotel in Washington a couple of weeks ago. (See ShrinkRap, Sept 17). The tv anchors were furious, and I thought then that this was going to be a turning point in the Trump coverage.
So here we are. And it's only Monday of this second very-bad-week for Donald Trump.
Ralph
Monday, October 3, 2016
In their blind opposition to Obama, Congress ignores his warnings, overrides his veto, and now our soldiers and diplomats are in danger.
This ranks high up on the list of perfidious acts of blind hatred and opposition to our duly elected president by a congress that cannot see past their prejudice against someone with President Obama's combination of intellect, judgment, temperament, and skin color.
Yes, I'm saying what you think I'm saying. Racial prejudice -- implicit bias, if you want to be kind -- has to be at the bottom of this Republican congress's stupidity and utter determination not to let this president have any success, if they can possibly stop it.
This is a bit complicated, so stay with me for a moment. We all know that many of the 9/11 hijackers, including Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudi Arabian nationals. There are rumors and some evidence that a lot of Saudi money backed them and later al Qaeda as well. So the families of the 9/11 victims have wanted to be able to sue the Saudi government. President Obama has resisted that, because that would open up our own military and diplomatic personnel to similar court proceedings from other countries, as well as possible physical attacks or arrest by foreign governments.
Nevertheless, Congress went forward with a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Recognizing the risk to us that this would open up, President Obama vetoed the bill. Then Congress this week voted overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, to override his veto -- the first of his presidency.
And now, according to political writer Jason Linkins of Huffington Post, they are having morning-after remorse. House Majority Leader Paul Ryan thinks maybe they might just need to tweek the bill "to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution.”
You see, what the bill did, and what Obama warned them about and why he vetoed it, was that to allow our citizens to sue other governments, we have to waive sovereign immunity protections. And that sets a precedent that other nations can also use against us -- like when we invade Iraq or bomb Syria. It's why we left no personnel in Iraq when we pulled out. Despite Republicans blaming Obama for that, it was George W. Bush who negotiated the exit date; and the Iraqi government would not agree to give our soldiers immunity if we stayed longer. Republicans ignore this when they blame Obama for the chaos in Iraq now, saying he should have left some troops there.
OK. Now it gets interesting. In their morning-after remorse, Republicans are learning from their new leader, Donald Trump. Never admit a mistake or acknowledge a failure. Rather than accept responsibility, Republicans are trying to blame it on . . . wait for it . . . on President Obama. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called this debacle "a good example of . . . a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation [that] was obviously very popular."
In other words, they were rashly rushing forward to ride the wave of popular support for the bill, and it's the president's fault that he didn't explain the consequences of their own bill to them before they passed it.
The trouble with that is obvious. It's their bill; they own it and are responsible. But that's not the issue. The real truth is that President Obama DID try to tell them. In a July 15, 2016 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained to reporters why they were opposed to JASTA.
Earnest: ". . . [T]he way that this law is written could open up U.S. companies and even potentially U.S. personnel to vulnerabilities when they’re engaged in actions or doing business or conducting official government work overseas. There is an important principle related to sovereign immunity. . . . So we believe that’s a principle worth protecting. . . . a specific principle that benefits the United States and private U.S. interests in countries all around the globe."
OK. But that was a press secretary speaking to reporters. Did the White House directly communicate this to Congress? At another press briefing on September 23, 2016, Earnest discussed attempts by the White House to get congress to address these concerns about preserving the immunity of our own people. He said "that’s the nature of the conversations that we’re having with members of Congress on Capitol Hill."
Congress went ahead anyway and passed the bill without finding the solution, and in his letter accompanying his veto, President Obama wrote to the Senate:
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
"I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism. . . .
". . . . JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity . . . could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. . . . sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. . . .
" . . . . Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials ― including our men and women in uniform ― for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. . . . "
Nothing about this concern was a secret. Huffington Post put out a podcast on it last week. And it was discussed on NPR well ahead of the veto override. Heck, even I knew about the problem without hearing any of those discussions. So congressional leaders certainly should have known the consequences.
But Republican House and Senate leaders won't take the responsibility of their own rash actions that they were adequately warned about. Either they don't respect President Obama enough to pay attention to his warnings. Or they understood fully and their game plan was this: to force the hated Obama to veto a bill that's very popular with a public unaware of the consequences. Then they would override his veto, so they could rush home to campaign on having stood up to Obama, who was siding with a foreign Muslim government over the American people.
It worked for a day -- and then somebody began reporting on it, and Ryan and McConnell had to admit there was a problem with the bill as written (as Obama had warned). So now it's amusing to watch them squirm in their own backfire stew -- and, like their great orange leader, try to blame it on somebody else, namely President Obama. What? He didn't make you listen to him the first time, so it's his fault? It just won't wash, folks. And it gives voters one more reason to vote Republicans out of office -- and send Donald Trump back to his gold-plated toys.
Ralph
Yes, I'm saying what you think I'm saying. Racial prejudice -- implicit bias, if you want to be kind -- has to be at the bottom of this Republican congress's stupidity and utter determination not to let this president have any success, if they can possibly stop it.
This is a bit complicated, so stay with me for a moment. We all know that many of the 9/11 hijackers, including Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudi Arabian nationals. There are rumors and some evidence that a lot of Saudi money backed them and later al Qaeda as well. So the families of the 9/11 victims have wanted to be able to sue the Saudi government. President Obama has resisted that, because that would open up our own military and diplomatic personnel to similar court proceedings from other countries, as well as possible physical attacks or arrest by foreign governments.
Nevertheless, Congress went forward with a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Recognizing the risk to us that this would open up, President Obama vetoed the bill. Then Congress this week voted overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, to override his veto -- the first of his presidency.
And now, according to political writer Jason Linkins of Huffington Post, they are having morning-after remorse. House Majority Leader Paul Ryan thinks maybe they might just need to tweek the bill "to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution.”
You see, what the bill did, and what Obama warned them about and why he vetoed it, was that to allow our citizens to sue other governments, we have to waive sovereign immunity protections. And that sets a precedent that other nations can also use against us -- like when we invade Iraq or bomb Syria. It's why we left no personnel in Iraq when we pulled out. Despite Republicans blaming Obama for that, it was George W. Bush who negotiated the exit date; and the Iraqi government would not agree to give our soldiers immunity if we stayed longer. Republicans ignore this when they blame Obama for the chaos in Iraq now, saying he should have left some troops there.
OK. Now it gets interesting. In their morning-after remorse, Republicans are learning from their new leader, Donald Trump. Never admit a mistake or acknowledge a failure. Rather than accept responsibility, Republicans are trying to blame it on . . . wait for it . . . on President Obama. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called this debacle "a good example of . . . a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation [that] was obviously very popular."
In other words, they were rashly rushing forward to ride the wave of popular support for the bill, and it's the president's fault that he didn't explain the consequences of their own bill to them before they passed it.
The trouble with that is obvious. It's their bill; they own it and are responsible. But that's not the issue. The real truth is that President Obama DID try to tell them. In a July 15, 2016 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained to reporters why they were opposed to JASTA.
Earnest: ". . . [T]he way that this law is written could open up U.S. companies and even potentially U.S. personnel to vulnerabilities when they’re engaged in actions or doing business or conducting official government work overseas. There is an important principle related to sovereign immunity. . . . So we believe that’s a principle worth protecting. . . . a specific principle that benefits the United States and private U.S. interests in countries all around the globe."
OK. But that was a press secretary speaking to reporters. Did the White House directly communicate this to Congress? At another press briefing on September 23, 2016, Earnest discussed attempts by the White House to get congress to address these concerns about preserving the immunity of our own people. He said "that’s the nature of the conversations that we’re having with members of Congress on Capitol Hill."
Congress went ahead anyway and passed the bill without finding the solution, and in his letter accompanying his veto, President Obama wrote to the Senate:
* * * * *
Veto Message from the President ― S.2040:TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
"I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism. . . .
". . . . JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity . . . could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. . . . sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. . . .
" . . . . Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials ― including our men and women in uniform ― for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. . . . "
* * * * *
Nothing about this concern was a secret. Huffington Post put out a podcast on it last week. And it was discussed on NPR well ahead of the veto override. Heck, even I knew about the problem without hearing any of those discussions. So congressional leaders certainly should have known the consequences.
But Republican House and Senate leaders won't take the responsibility of their own rash actions that they were adequately warned about. Either they don't respect President Obama enough to pay attention to his warnings. Or they understood fully and their game plan was this: to force the hated Obama to veto a bill that's very popular with a public unaware of the consequences. Then they would override his veto, so they could rush home to campaign on having stood up to Obama, who was siding with a foreign Muslim government over the American people.
It worked for a day -- and then somebody began reporting on it, and Ryan and McConnell had to admit there was a problem with the bill as written (as Obama had warned). So now it's amusing to watch them squirm in their own backfire stew -- and, like their great orange leader, try to blame it on somebody else, namely President Obama. What? He didn't make you listen to him the first time, so it's his fault? It just won't wash, folks. And it gives voters one more reason to vote Republicans out of office -- and send Donald Trump back to his gold-plated toys.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
