Donald the accused rapist

In discussing the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape back during the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump told his side-kick Billy Bush that "When you're a star they let you do it.    I just start kissing them.   Grab 'em by the p--sy.   They'll let you do anything when you're a star."

We've long-since learned not to trust anything Trump says, so this could just be his untrue braggadocio.   On the other hand, now at least a 16th woman has come forward to corroborate Donald Trump's boorish (and worse) behavior toward women.

E. Jean Carroll, noted magazine writer and advice columnist, has included in her forthcoming book What Do We Need Men For?  A Modest Proposal, a disturbing encounter with Donald Trump in the mid-1990's.   An excerpt from the book describing the incident has just been published in New York Magazine.  

Carroll says she ran into Trump while shopping at Bergdorf Goodman Department store and that they recognized each other and spoke.   Trump then asked her help in picking out a gift for a woman.   She suggested a handbag or a hat, but Trump was more interested in looking at lingerie, Carroll says.  They joked about trying it on, and then Trump led her into a dressing room where no one else was around.

Although up to that point it had been playful, once inside the dressing room, she says Trump "lunged at" her, pushed her against the wall and began kissing her.   Then he became more aggressively sexual, pulling down her tights and forcing himself on her, eventually pushing his penis at least part-way into her.   "It was a fight," and he hurt her, she says.   She fought him off as best she could and finally got out and away from him.

She further states that she told two different friends about the incident at the time, but did not bring charges against him.   It was typical, in that era, not to bring charges of sexual assault against powerful and famous men -- because they, the women, would often suffer more public shaming and character destruction than the men.   The past five years has been proof of that, Harvey Weinstein being a prime example.

Several commentators have pointed out that, although this would be beyond the statute of limitations for most charges, there is no time limitation on charges of rape.    According to Carroll's account, this was rape.

Journalistic experts have also said that reputable publishers and periodicals like New York Magazine are scrupulous in their vetting of stories like this, which means they have checked it out as much as possible for authenticity.    The two contemporaneous confidantes she told, who have corroborated that she told them the same story shortly after it happened, lend credence to the story as true.

Donald Trump's response has been typical for him:   Deny, deny, deny and then denigrate the accuser.     First, he said he didn't even know this woman;  had never me her.    After a news photo of her and her husband with Donald and Ivana Trump appeared, he changed to this:

"She's not my type."     Does that mean that, if she were your "type," what you did would have been all right, Donald?   Is that what you're saying?    In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Ms. Carroll's response, sardonically, was "I'm so glad I'm not his type."

Then, if "not my type" weren't enough (which it wasn't)  Trump added on:   "It didn't happen.    It never happened."

Trump has absolutely no credibility in any area.   Why should his "didn't happen" be any good as a defense?   So we have: "don't know her" (disproven by the photo);  "not my type" (a ridiculous non-defense);   "didn't happen" (sure it did).

So, there's a pretty good chance that Donald J. Trump, in addition to all the other ways he is unfit for the job of President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States -- is a rapist.

Ralph

The picture says it all -- in trying to be the Anti-Obama, Trump has failed as president

Trump and Obama in the Oval Office during the transition.
photo by Olivier Douliery

This, including quotes, is based on an NBC News article by Dan De Luce, Shelby Hanssen, and Owen Hayes, concerning the current Iran situation under President Trump.

*     *     *     *     *

"To supporters of the Iran nuclear deal, it's no surprise that President Donald Trump is now facing a potential war with Iran.  Long before Trump was elected, advocates of the nuclear agreement — including then-President Barack Obama, French President Emmanuel Macron and others — had argued that abandoning the accord carried grave risks that could lead to an armed conflict.

"'So let's not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," Obama said in a speech in 2015 defending the deal before a congressional vote.

"Trump as a candidate vowed to dump what he called 'the worst deal ever' and he made good on his promise in 2018. A year later, Trump is openly discussing the pros and cons of bombing Iran.

"On Friday, the president said in a tweet that he had ordered and then called off military strikes against Iran after Tehran shot down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz.

"In his 2015 speech, Obama said that without an agreement limiting Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief, any U.S. administration would be left with only one option to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — 'another war in the Middle East.' . . . .

"'Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities?'  Obama said.
At the time, Republican opponents of the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the JCPOA, dismissed the idea that the alternative to the deal was waging war on Iran.  Macron and other European leaders repeatedly urged Trump not to abandon the agreement, and voiced concern that the collapse of the accord carried dangers for an already volatile region.

"At the U.N. General Assembly in 2017, the French president warned that jettisoning the deal 'without anything to replace it would be a grave mistake.' And he added that the agreement was 'essential to peace, at a time when the risk of an infernal spiral cannot be ruled out.'

"Macron issued a more dire warning a year later as Trump was poised to abandon the agreement. 'That would mean opening Pandora's box, it could mean war,' Macron told the German magazine Der Spiegel. But he added, 'I don't believe that Donald Trump wants war.'

"U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in May 2018 that the nuclear agreement was an 'important diplomatic victory' and that discarding it without presenting an alternative would place the Middle East 'in a very dangerous position.'  German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a decision by Trump to withdraw from the nuclear deal might lead to the collapse of the agreement and possibly trigger a regional war, Axios reported last year.

"After Trump announced his decision on May 8, 2018, to withdraw the United States from the nuclear accord, Obama repeated his warning about the consequences of doing so.  'Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East.' Obama said . . . .

". . . . [Hillary] Clinton said Trump's approach to the issue was reckless. . . .The former head of U.S. Central Command, U.S. Army Gen. Joseph Votel, told senators at a hearing in March 2018 that . . . it was not clear how that would be addressed if Washington pulled out. . . ."

"'The JCPOA addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran, so if the JCPOA goes away, then we will have to have another way to deal with their nuclear weapons program,' Votel said."

"It's widely known that Trump is obsessed with undoing President Obama's accomplishments in office, as well as trying to undermine him in any way possible -- from questioning his birthplace to trying to destroy Obamacare and the international accords.

"Yet it remains true:   whatever Trump has  been able to tear down, he has also been unable to put anything better in its place.    USMCA as a replacement for NAFTA (North America Free Trade Act) is little more than a name change, for example.   Changes Trump and Republicans have brought about in Obamacare have made it worse, more likely to fail, not better.    Immigration?    Even the economic gains are in line with changes that began under Obama.

"As to foreign policy and our standing as world leader, Trump's obsession with being the Anti-Obama has been a disaster.  Destroying the Iran agreement is perhaps the most dangerous -- which, characteristically, Trump is trying to use to promote himself as a decisive leader and the essential commander-in-chief as we go into the re-election campaign.  It is so very much the opposite.   He proves every day that he is not fit for the job.  "

*     *     *     *     *

He has no concept of the history of their present government, which is the result of a revolution which came into power as a result of our assisting in the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist government back in the 1970s.    Our leaders at the time couldn't tolerate the idea of a socialist in control of all that oil -- so we helped overturn that government and install the autocratic Shah, who was later overthrown in another revolution that put the religious clerics and the military in power.

So, when the Iranian people chant "Death to America" in the streets, we at least should pause for a moment to think about what we have done to their country and their government through the years  and what responsibility we bear -- instead of strutting around with cocky self-assurance that we are always in the right.

But Donald Trump is incapable of doing anything but strut and boast and attack.  It is said that he is thoroughly enjoying the power he exerted, first, in approving the airstrike -- and then in bucking his generals in aborting it.   So now, he's strutting and boasting that he is the compassionate one because he decided not to kill 150 people.

Compassionate people do not have to boast about being compassionate, Donald.

Ralph

Postscript to yesterday's post

I just wanted to clarify this:   Yes, I'm am glad that Trump did not send airstrikes that would have killed 150 people to retaliate against Iran's shooting down (maybe) our unmanned drone.

What I'm outraged about -- and frightened by -- is that Trump presents this as a last minute thought he had.   Why was it never thought about until the planes were either on the runway or in the air?

A retired general interviewed last night on MSNBC assured listeners that, in briefing the president on such a plan, one of the first things they would include is the likely human lives lost.

So, either Trump's story is made up as a cover for some other reason;  or else he is just so inattentive that, when they briefed him, he didn't take that in.

No, I do not agree with FoxNews when they claim that this act was "Trump at his most presidential" so far.

Ralph

Disaster as commander-in-chief; awful as TV hero.

We have perhaps just seen the worst performance by Donald Trump as president -- and, more cogently here, as commander-in-chief.

So the Iranians shot down one of our unmanned drones, which they claim had invaded their airspace in the Gulf region.   That's debatable.   We say it was over international waters.

The point here, however, is not who's right about where the plane was.   The point is Donald Trump's behavior vis a vis the retaliation he agreed to and then aborted at the last moment.   And about why, who he last talked to, and what were the reasons.  We don't know the answer to any of those questions.

Here's Trump's version for TV audiences.   I'm paraphrasing, but it's as likely to be true as anything that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth.

A retaliatory airstrike was planned for last night.   Trump had signed off on it.   Everything was a "go" -- until the last moment.   Trump says it was just before take-off;  some reporters covering him closely suggest the planes may have already been in the air.

Whether he got cold feet, whether some friend or TV host talked to him.   Who knows.   Suddenly Trump the would-be hero becomes concerned about how many people will be killed in our retaliatory airstrike.   So he asks his general, "How many people will die?"

Trump's version is that the general said, "I'll have to get back to you."   A few minutes later, the general comes back and says the estimate is that 150 will die.

[My private suspicion is that the general needed a moment to get out of the room and yell, "HELP!!!   The president is losing it."]

Now Trump, playing the compassionate president on TV, tells us he says to himself.   Wow.   For one unmanned drone, 150 people will die?    That's not good.    So he cancels the strike -- either with the planes on the runway or, maybe, already in the air.

We really don't know the truth because Trump lies about everything.  Our allies and our adversaries know this too.

Some have suggested that the Iranians may have sent a message to Trump through Oman.    Some suggest that Putin may have told him to cool it.    We just don't know.

That's the point.    This is government by chaos, unreliability, and incompetence.

If in fact neither Trump, nor his generals in on the planning, knew and had discussed the likely human loss , weighed against an unmanned drone -- that's incompetent.   If this is a cover story for something else, it's a great example why you don't telegraph these things in advance.    Whatever . . .  it's just not credible that Trump's story is the truth.  Some things need not to be made public.  So, then just keep quiet about it all.   Don't go blabbing so that you then have to give some reason to explain changes.

As some commentators have said:   It's impossible to brief Trump.   He cannot follow a line of thought, let alone think tactically and strategically.

What scares me is that, the more desperate he becomes to get re-elected, the more erratic he will become.    I'd says the odds are good that we will be at war with Iran before the year is out.    And with no permanent secretary of defense, and then there's John Bolton who's been itching to attack Iran for years.

Frankly, I'm less outraged than I was -- but way more scared.

Ralph

Trump formally opens his 2020 campaign.

Well, that headline is quite misleading.   Trump actually filed papers to run for 2020 re-election the day after he was inaugurated in January 2017 -- and he's been holding campaign style rallies regularly since then to keep his base fired up.

Hoping to eliminate some of the hysteria surrounding this Trump campaign kickoff event, I did not watch it on TV;   and then I turned to a British newspaper account for a summary in The Guardian.   Here's some of what they reported, under the heading, "President kicked off his bid with lies, attacks on the press and claims a Democrat president would 'shut down your free speech":

*     *     *     *     *

". . . . [T]he president formally launched his campaign before a capacity 20,000 crowd in a sports stadium in Orlando . . . demonstrating that his base, at least, remains as fervent as ever.

"Trump spent little effort offering a vision of the future.   He and his supporters were most energised by his greatest hits:   grievance politics, demonising opponents, raging against perceived injustices.  There was even a reprise of attacks on Hillary Clinton . . . complete with furious chants of 'Lock her up?'

"His vicious, often fabricated, attacks implied that while a referendum on his record would likely end in defeat, his campaign believes that whipping up fear of a Democrat in the White House could yet save his skin. . . . 

[Referring to Democrats as "this angry leftwing mob," he claimed they "would shut down your free speech."]   "He added, without evidence:   'They would strip Americans of their constitutional rights while flooding the country with illegal immigrants in the hopes it will expand their political base.' . .

"'A vote for any Democrat is 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream,' Trump said. . . . He falsely and wildly claimed that leading Democrats favour 'open borders' and oppose measures to prevent the execution of children after birth [the right's latest misnomer for rare, late-term abortions.]   The most divisive president for decades argued it was Democrats who want to divide Americans into factions and 'shred the constitution' . . .

"He showed how he intends to weaponise the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference.  'What did they come up with?', he asked.   'No collusion and the fact that led our great attorney general to determine no obstruction.' . . . 

". . . 'For the last two and half years we have been under siege,' he said.  'They are really going after you.  That's what this is all about.' . . . 

". . . There was the usual litany of Trump exaggerations and lies.  The man who pulled America out of the Paris climate accord and slashed environmental regulations announced:  'Our air and water are the cleanest they've ever been by far.'

"He said of the economy:  'It's soaring to incredible new heights.  Perhaps the greatest economy we've had in the history of our country'. . . .   Trump also falsely claimed the biggest tax cut in American history.

"When he did look forward, the promises were vague and invited mockery."

[After a comment about the enthusiasm and positive excitement inside the arena, The Guardian also commented on the opposition outside.]  "Hundreds of anti-Trump protesters applauded and took photos when a 20 ft blimp of a Trump baby in a nappy [British for diaper] was inflated near the arena.

"Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders gave an immediate rebuttal to Trump's speech, summarizing it as 'lies, distortions, and total absolute nonsense.'  He criticized Trump for barely talking about the climate emergency, or that 'half of the people in the country are working paycheck to paycheck.'"

*     *     *     *     *

Well, at least that's done -- and perhaps will be the high point of Trump's re-election campaign.   A couple of observations and thoughts:

1.  I'm still worried about Trump's ability to whip up negative fervor in his base by telling these lies and distorting the truth about what's happening in the world.

2  At least by this account, there was no mention of foreign policy -- or the very dangerous game Trump is playing in the Middle East.   Is he really trying to goad Iran into some attack that he will then use to start a war with them?   I've always feared war will be his political tactic if he thinks he's losing the election.

3.  I'm worried that the Democrats won't get united and that we won't win in 2020.   The top-ranking Democrat, until the Democratic presidential candidate becomes obvious, is Nancy Pelosi.   And, although she is a tough political strategist, she doesn't have the wide range of support that our leader needs at this point.

4.  So, yes, voters need some time -- and some debates -- to coalesce around a front-runner and then a standard-bearer candidate;   but Republicans already have that in Trump.  And the longer we go without our leader, the more ground we have to make up later.

Ralph

Clarifying what's legal to get from foreign nationals: Trump/Russia vs Steele Dossier

For all else that can be said of the Trump administration, the past three years have been a collective civics lesson for the people of the United States.   Unfortunately, like everything else, this has been extremely partisan.    Because one side looks to the constitution, legal analysis, and history for clarity, while the other side looks to President Trump and FoxNews for misinformation.

The latest topic -- politicians and political campaigns accepting "something of value" from foreign nationals and foreign governments -- is a topic that Donald Trump treats like a candy store.    George Stephanopolis, in his ABC broadcast interview with Trump Sunday night, tried to correct some of Trump's misstatements.   It was obvious Trump doesn't listen -- he just blusters and bloviates right over anyone who disagrees with him.

Vox.com's Jen Kirby wrote a clarifying piece online June 14, 2019.   Here are some excerpts:

*     *     *     *     *

". . . .  And when it comes to foreign influence, the law is clear:   As [FEC's] Weintraub wrote [see ShrinkRap, June 16], it is 'illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.'

"In most cases, what this means is pretty obvious:   Foreign nationals can't donate money to a presidential campaign.  It's also illegal for candidates themselves to solicit or receive monetary contributions from foreign nationals.

"But while a 'thing of value' is easy to define when it comes to money, or even services or in-kind contributions, it's a lot more complicated when it comes to something like opposition research, or so-called campaign dirt.

"Campaign-relevant information from a foreign national definitely can be an illegal in-kind contribution, but it gets trickier when the information does not have obvious case value and isn't necessarily something that a campaign regularly needs to buy . . .  

"Special counsel Robert Mueller grappled with this question as part of his investigation. . . .  [He] concluded in his report that 'candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-sourced ban could apply,' but added that the issue hadn't really been tested in court and could also have freedom of speech implications.

"Ultimately, Mueller declined to prosecute Trump, Jr. because he said he could not prove that the president's son 'knowingly' or 'willfully' broke the law . . . . 

"Experts are split on Mueller's conclusion on Trump Jr.   But . . . [other experts] pointed out that Mueller's decision was about whether Trump Jr. should be criminally charged -- and doesn't address the question of whether he could be subject to civil penalties from the FEC, which has a much lower threshold. . .

"Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School [says] that practical considerations would suggest that, yes, campaign dirt does have value.  'There's a reason campaigns pay for opposition research: . . . It can be much more useful and valuable than walking in with a check.'

[So, what about the Steele dossier, which was essentially opposition research on Trump.   Trump has argued that the Clinton campaign is the one that should be investigated, because the Clinton campaign paid, in part, for that opposition research done by a foreign national, Christopher Steele, a former British spy.    And now Republicans are using this to deflect attention from the Trump comments about accepting dirt on his opponents.   Back to quoting from the Vox.com article:]

"Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed.   'You can pay a foreign national to provide you services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizsen,' Levinson said.  "As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that's not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited.  That's just a fair exchange of money for services.'

"If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise.  It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

"If a campaign is paying someone for work or services, they're being compensated.   But where that doesn't happen, and a campaign is accepting a contribution -- or 'thing of value' -- from a foreign government, the question then is what's in it for them?

"As [FEC's] Weintraub noted, America's founders knew that when foreign governments seek to interfere in elections, it's always to advance their interests, not America's. . . .

"[When asked on "Fox and Friends" whether he would accept a similar offer for the 2020 campaign, Trump said] . . .  he doesn't 'think anybody would present me with anything [i.e. dirt on an opponent in the upcoming election] because they know how much I love the country.'    But his comments earlier in the week suggested otherwise.   Jared Kushner . . . also wouldn't say in an interview last week whether he'd call the FBI if he were offered dirt again.

"And that refusal to be unequivocal about foreign interference ultimately undermines a thing of value for all Americans:  the belief in the integrity of the vote."

*     *     *     *     *

Well, Trump and his team really got caught flatfooted in this one.   Whether he is just so ignorant and so uncaring about our laws that he doesn't even have any such category in his mind -- or else he is so willfully lawless -- really doesn't make much difference.    The result is the same.   Donald Trump is a disaster for our democracy.

Our only hope is that the democracy itself is strong enough to withstand such an assault and survive to repair it.

It's important not to confuse what Team Trump did with Russia from what Hillary Clinton did with the Steele Dossier.   One was "accepting dirt" to help Trump win the election -- and the American public still doesn't know what price Trump paid Putin for it.  The other was simply a business arrangement for services rendered, past tense, with no further obligations or implied favoritism.

Republicans will continue to try to conflate the two, because it's their best defense to give their ignorant/gullible base.   But the two are not in the same category at all.  Keep that clear.

Ralph

Letter from head of Federal Elections Commission

Coming one day after Donald Trump's interview with ABC''s George Stephanopolis, in which Trump dismissively claimed that, of course, he would accept "dirt" on an opponent from anyone, including a representative of a foreign government.,   He says every politician does it, and seemed unaware that it was a federal crime, referring to it simply as "opposition research."

Would he notify the FBI, Stephanopolis asked,    "Why would I?  I've never called the FBI in my life," was Trump's initial reply.    Only after repeated questioning, did Trump pick up some indication that maybe there was something wrong with his answer.   So when asked again what he would do if he had an overture from some foreign agent in the 2020 election, he replied:   "Maybe you do both.    I'd definitely would want to listen to what they had;   and maybe, if was something bad, you might call the FBI."

Here, Trump completely ignores the reason behind this prohibition.   It makes him vulnerable to blackmail and control by this foreign government -- or even an individual.   It could be a way for other countries to control our electoral process, the choice of our leader, and the direction of our governance.

One day after this interview aired, the astonished head of the Federal Elections Commission, Ellen Weintraub, put out a notice and that began with this:   "I would not have thought I would need to say this:"  and then continued with a formal notice:

"Let me make something 100% clear to the American people and to anyone running for public office.  It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.   This is not a novel concept.  Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable from the beginning of our nation.   Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about "foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence."   They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's.     Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation.  Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Anyone who has gone through a presidential campaign -- or even been interested in presidential politics over a few decades --  should know this, because it has been widely discussed in the past.   How could it not have been part of the discussion of how to craft the explanation of Don, Jr.'s meeting with Russians in Trump Tower?    You cannot accept anything of value, whether it be financial donations, in-kind material assistance, or useful information or services,    And it's not just foreign governments but foreign nationals, i.e., citizens of a foreign country.

Almost every election cycle, there is news about some campaign having to return a contribution when it was learned the person was a foreign national.   It's even happened quite recently in the Trump camp, when the Chinese woman got entry at Mar-a-Lago, claiming that she had been invited to a meeting there.   It turned out she is an influence peddler in China and was taking huge sums of money to get people into meetings with Trump -- portions of which she was then making as donations to Trump.   She is now under indictment.   Surely word of this reached Trump.

Either Trump really does know this and is being "willfully ignorant," or else he is blatantly showing his disregard for the law and stating by his actions that he is above the law.

Nothing before seems to have upset Republicans in Congress quite like this has.   Perhaps (I hope) it's because it proves more clearly than before that Trump really is a lawless president and thinks the laws don't apply to him -- or else he will just flout them and see if anybody does anything about it.   And, when they don't, then he has established new norms.

This is the behavior of mobsters and sociopaths.

Ralph