By WaPo Editorial Board:
Of 549 key appointments, the White House has yet to name 515, according to a tracker by The Post and Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. Only 14 have been confirmed, and 20 are waiting. These key positions are among the roughly 1,200 total that require Senate confirmation and about 4,100 overall that the new administration must fill.
The incoming Trump team wasted no time in forcing Obama appointees overseas to hurry home and vacate their positions by Inauguration Day, but the new administration has moved with far less speed to find replacements. The only three ambassadors nominated so far are to China, Israel and the United Kingdom. Not a single assistant secretary of state has been named, much less confirmed.
The business of finding good people and steering them through the labyrinth of approval and security clearance is complex and difficult. But it also seems that the White House chaos is taking a toll. One can only imagine Mr. Tillerson’s frustration when his choice for deputy secretary of state, Elliott Abrams, was torpedoed by Mr. Trump because of an op-ed Mr. Abrams had written earlier. The New York Times reports that a top aide to Ben Carson, nominated to be housing and urban development secretary, was fired and escorted out of the department Feb. 15 after writings critical of Mr. Trump turned up in his vetting. The National Security Council, the nerve center for foreign and defense policy, lost its first Trump-appointed chief, Michael Flynn, after less than four weeks on the job, and when the position was offered to a retired vice admiral, Robert Harward, he reportedly turned it down in part because of the unpredictable behavior of the president. On Monday, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster was named to the post. Congressional Republicans, who have the legislative majority, are saying they are having difficulty finding someone to ask about priorities for the Trump administration.
The Full Story (February 20, 2017)
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Monday, June 19, 2017
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Thursday, June 8, 2017
[Special] Former FBI Director James Comey to Testify Before Congress
As the country awaits James Comey's testimony today, June 8, let's take the time to go back about a month ago to when Comey was fired by Trump. After that, feel free to read Comey's prepared opening statement, with annotated notes by Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall.
NBC News: What You Need to Know About Trump, Comey and the Russia Probe by Benjy Sarlin
NBC News: What You Need to Know About Trump, Comey and the Russia Probe by Benjy Sarlin
The Washington Post: Inside Trump’s Anger and Impatience — and His Sudden Decision to Fire Comey by Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz and Robert Costa
Politico: Behind Comey’s Firing [Was] An enraged Trump, Fuming About Russia (the president deliberated for more than a week before ousting the FBI chief who was investigating Trump associates) by Josh Dawsey
The Washington Post: Why Trump Expected Only Applause When He Told Comey, ‘You’re fired.’ by Marc Fisher
The Atlantic: 'There Is a Real Risk Here Things Will Spin Out of Control' by Rosie Gray and McKay Coppins
The New Yorker: Donald Trump's Firing of James Comey is an Attack on American Democracy by John Cassidy
The Atlantic: This is Not a Drill by David Frum
The Washington Post: Did Trump Already Blow His Own Cover Story About Comey’s Firing? by Jennifer Rubin
Politico: Russia's Oval Office Victory Dance (the cozy meeting between President Trump and Russia’s foreign minister came at Vladimir Putin’s insistence) by Susan B. Glasser
CNN: Source Close to Comey Says There Were 2 Reasons the FBI Director Was Fired by Jake Tapper [1) Comey never provided Trump with any assurance of loyalty and 2) the FBI's investigation into possible collusion with Russia in the 2016 election was accelerating]
New York Times: Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry by Matthew Rosenberg and Matt Apuzzo
Bloomberg: Why Trump Really Fired Comey (two things have always driven the president: self-aggrandizement and self-preservation) by Timothy L. O'Brien
Talking Points Memo: Some Key Fact Points to Get Our Bearing by Josh Marshall
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Talking Points Memo: Flynn Doesn’t Matter. This Is About Trump.
By Josh Marshall:
Step back for a second and look at this. While certainties are hard to come by, it seems clear that Russia broke into computer networks and selectively released private emails to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. When President Obama took a series of actions to punish the Russian government for this interference, President-Elect Trump’s top foreign policy advisor made a series of calls to the Russian government’s representative in the United States to ask him to have his government refrain from retaliation and suggested that the punishments could be lifted once the new government was sworn in. Then he lied about the calls both publicly and apparently within the White House. What has gotten lost in this discussion is that these questionable calls were aimed at blunting the punishment meted out for the election interference that helped Donald Trump become President. This is mind-boggling.
Consider another point.
Through the course of the campaign, transition and presidency, three top Trump advisors and staffers have had to resign because of issues tied to Russia. Paul Manafort, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. Page might arguably be termed a secondary figure. Manafort ran Trump’s campaign and Flynn was his top foreign policy advisor for a year. The one common denominator between all these events, all these men is one person: Donald Trump.
As I said above, this has all been happening before our eyes, the train of inexplicable actions, the unaccountable ties and monetary connections, the willful, almost inexplicable need to make the case for Vladimir Putin even when the President knows the suspicion he’s under. When I was writing my first post on this topic more than 6 months ago, I had the uncanny feeling of finding what I was writing impossible to believe as I wrote it. And yet, I would go through the list of unexplained occurrences and actions, clear business and political connections, sycophantic support and more and realize there was too much evidence to ignore. It was fantastical and yet in plain sight.
Step back for a second and look at this. While certainties are hard to come by, it seems clear that Russia broke into computer networks and selectively released private emails to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. When President Obama took a series of actions to punish the Russian government for this interference, President-Elect Trump’s top foreign policy advisor made a series of calls to the Russian government’s representative in the United States to ask him to have his government refrain from retaliation and suggested that the punishments could be lifted once the new government was sworn in. Then he lied about the calls both publicly and apparently within the White House. What has gotten lost in this discussion is that these questionable calls were aimed at blunting the punishment meted out for the election interference that helped Donald Trump become President. This is mind-boggling.
Consider another point.
Through the course of the campaign, transition and presidency, three top Trump advisors and staffers have had to resign because of issues tied to Russia. Paul Manafort, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. Page might arguably be termed a secondary figure. Manafort ran Trump’s campaign and Flynn was his top foreign policy advisor for a year. The one common denominator between all these events, all these men is one person: Donald Trump.
As I said above, this has all been happening before our eyes, the train of inexplicable actions, the unaccountable ties and monetary connections, the willful, almost inexplicable need to make the case for Vladimir Putin even when the President knows the suspicion he’s under. When I was writing my first post on this topic more than 6 months ago, I had the uncanny feeling of finding what I was writing impossible to believe as I wrote it. And yet, I would go through the list of unexplained occurrences and actions, clear business and political connections, sycophantic support and more and realize there was too much evidence to ignore. It was fantastical and yet in plain sight.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Talking Points Memo: Flynn Doesn’t Matter. This Is About Trump.
By Josh Marshall:
Step back for a second and look at this. While certainties are hard to come by, it seems clear that Russia broke into computer networks and selectively released private emails to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. When President Obama took a series of actions to punish the Russian government for this interference, President-Elect Trump’s top foreign policy advisor made a series of calls to the Russian government’s representative in the United States to ask him to have his government refrain from retaliation and suggested that the punishments could be lifted once the new government was sworn in. Then he lied about the calls both publicly and apparently within the White House. What has gotten lost in this discussion is that these questionable calls were aimed at blunting the punishment meted out for the election interference that helped Donald Trump become President. This is mind-boggling.
Consider another point.
Through the course of the campaign, transition and presidency, three top Trump advisors and staffers have had to resign because of issues tied to Russia. Paul Manafort, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. Page might arguably be termed a secondary figure. Manafort ran Trump’s campaign and Flynn was his top foreign policy advisor for a year. The one common denominator between all these events, all these men is one person: Donald Trump.
As I said above, this has all been happening before our eyes, the train of inexplicable actions, the unaccountable ties and monetary connections, the willful, almost inexplicable need to make the case for Vladimir Putin even when the President knows the suspicion he’s under. When I was writing my first post on this topic more than 6 months ago, I had the uncanny feeling of finding what I was writing impossible to believe as I wrote it. And yet, I would go through the list of unexplained occurrences and actions, clear business and political connections, sycophantic support and more and realize there was too much evidence to ignore. It was fantastical and yet in plain sight.
Consider another point.
Through the course of the campaign, transition and presidency, three top Trump advisors and staffers have had to resign because of issues tied to Russia. Paul Manafort, Carter Page and now Michael Flynn. Page might arguably be termed a secondary figure. Manafort ran Trump’s campaign and Flynn was his top foreign policy advisor for a year. The one common denominator between all these events, all these men is one person: Donald Trump.
As I said above, this has all been happening before our eyes, the train of inexplicable actions, the unaccountable ties and monetary connections, the willful, almost inexplicable need to make the case for Vladimir Putin even when the President knows the suspicion he’s under. When I was writing my first post on this topic more than 6 months ago, I had the uncanny feeling of finding what I was writing impossible to believe as I wrote it. And yet, I would go through the list of unexplained occurrences and actions, clear business and political connections, sycophantic support and more and realize there was too much evidence to ignore. It was fantastical and yet in plain sight.
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Belly of the Beast: Praising Stephen Miller? Seriously?
By Stephen J. Harper:
“Congratulations Stephen Miller – on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!” Trump tweeted, as the world pondered North Korea’s missile test.
Question: What had the 31-year-old Miller — a non-lawyer who had been Jeff Sessions’ communications director before joining the Trump campaign — done to deserve such praise from his boss?
Answer: Betray a tragic ignorance of the U.S. Constitution while continuing Trump’s assault on the judiciary.
* * *
“There’s no such thing as judicial supremacy,” Miller told NBC’s Chuck Todd.
“The judiciary is not supreme,” he said to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
“We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government,” Miller explained to CBS’s John Dickerson. Then came his most chilling line: “The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”
That’s third world dictator-type rhetoric coming from a top presidential adviser. No competent attorney who cared about the U.S. Constitution could have vetted Miller’s talking points. Judicial review and the power of federal judges to invalidate unconstitutional executive and legislative actions date to the early years of the republic.
The Full Story (February 13, 2017)
(Editor's Note: I added a new tag "judiciary," which is long overdue given Trump's inclination to war with Judges. I may go back and edit the tag into earlier posts.)
“Congratulations Stephen Miller – on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!” Trump tweeted, as the world pondered North Korea’s missile test.
Question: What had the 31-year-old Miller — a non-lawyer who had been Jeff Sessions’ communications director before joining the Trump campaign — done to deserve such praise from his boss?
Answer: Betray a tragic ignorance of the U.S. Constitution while continuing Trump’s assault on the judiciary.
* * *
“There’s no such thing as judicial supremacy,” Miller told NBC’s Chuck Todd.
“The judiciary is not supreme,” he said to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
“We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government,” Miller explained to CBS’s John Dickerson. Then came his most chilling line: “The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”
That’s third world dictator-type rhetoric coming from a top presidential adviser. No competent attorney who cared about the U.S. Constitution could have vetted Miller’s talking points. Judicial review and the power of federal judges to invalidate unconstitutional executive and legislative actions date to the early years of the republic.
The Full Story (February 13, 2017)
(Editor's Note: I added a new tag "judiciary," which is long overdue given Trump's inclination to war with Judges. I may go back and edit the tag into earlier posts.)
Monday, May 15, 2017
Washington Post: A White House Where No One is in Charge
By Michael Gerson:
Trump has run a family business but never a large organization. Nor has he seen such an organization as an employee. “Trump,” says another former official, “is ill-suited to appreciate the importance of a coherent chain of command and decision-making process. On the contrary, his instincts run instead toward multiple mini power centers, which rewards competing aggressively for Trump’s favor.”
This seems to be the dynamic unfolding on the weekend political talk shows. These have traditionally been venues for an administration to communicate with media and political elites (whose religion dedicates Sunday morning to the gods of policy, scandal and pith). But Trump surrogates are clearly appealing to a different audience: an audience of one, who may well tweet them a nice pat on the back. The goal — as Miller demonstrated over the weekend — is not to persuade or even explain. It is to confidently repeat Trump’s most absurd or unsubstantiated claims from the previous week. This time it was electorally decisive voter fraud in New Hampshire (for which there is no evidence). Next weekend it could be the harm done by vaccination, or the possible murder of Antonin Scalia (both of which Trump has raised in the past). It is the main function of Trump surrogates to restate Trump’s “alternative facts” in a steady voice.
It is hard for me (and everyone else outside the White House) to know exactly what is going on in the West Wing. Leaks may provide a distorted picture. But, in this case, there have been an awful lot of them, clearly from the highest levels. And they uniformly reveal a management structure and culture in which the highest goal is not to display competence or to display creativity but to display loyalty, defined as sucking up. The philosophy of competing power centers has, indeed, produced terrible dysfunction, distraction, disloyalty and leaks. Trump’s failed and frightening executive order on immigration is exhibit A. But now the National Security Council seems to be in a full-scale crisis of purpose, thoroughly demoralized and trying to discern American policy from presidential tweets. With the real NSC badly weakened by the travails of the national security adviser, it seems that Bannon is developing a shadow NSC to serve his well-developed nationalist agenda.
The president may thrive in chaos, but the presidency does not. A president needs aides who will give him honest information and analysis, not compete for his favor. This may even involve checking a president’s mistaken instincts. There will always be competing power centers in the West Wing. But the White House runs best when there is, according to a former White House official, “a strong chief of staff, empowered by the president to exercise absolute control over all logistics, decision-making processes and execution. He can have as many advisers as he wants, but until one person has full control over the process, chaos will persist.”
Trump has run a family business but never a large organization. Nor has he seen such an organization as an employee. “Trump,” says another former official, “is ill-suited to appreciate the importance of a coherent chain of command and decision-making process. On the contrary, his instincts run instead toward multiple mini power centers, which rewards competing aggressively for Trump’s favor.”
This seems to be the dynamic unfolding on the weekend political talk shows. These have traditionally been venues for an administration to communicate with media and political elites (whose religion dedicates Sunday morning to the gods of policy, scandal and pith). But Trump surrogates are clearly appealing to a different audience: an audience of one, who may well tweet them a nice pat on the back. The goal — as Miller demonstrated over the weekend — is not to persuade or even explain. It is to confidently repeat Trump’s most absurd or unsubstantiated claims from the previous week. This time it was electorally decisive voter fraud in New Hampshire (for which there is no evidence). Next weekend it could be the harm done by vaccination, or the possible murder of Antonin Scalia (both of which Trump has raised in the past). It is the main function of Trump surrogates to restate Trump’s “alternative facts” in a steady voice.
It is hard for me (and everyone else outside the White House) to know exactly what is going on in the West Wing. Leaks may provide a distorted picture. But, in this case, there have been an awful lot of them, clearly from the highest levels. And they uniformly reveal a management structure and culture in which the highest goal is not to display competence or to display creativity but to display loyalty, defined as sucking up. The philosophy of competing power centers has, indeed, produced terrible dysfunction, distraction, disloyalty and leaks. Trump’s failed and frightening executive order on immigration is exhibit A. But now the National Security Council seems to be in a full-scale crisis of purpose, thoroughly demoralized and trying to discern American policy from presidential tweets. With the real NSC badly weakened by the travails of the national security adviser, it seems that Bannon is developing a shadow NSC to serve his well-developed nationalist agenda.
The president may thrive in chaos, but the presidency does not. A president needs aides who will give him honest information and analysis, not compete for his favor. This may even involve checking a president’s mistaken instincts. There will always be competing power centers in the West Wing. But the White House runs best when there is, according to a former White House official, “a strong chief of staff, empowered by the president to exercise absolute control over all logistics, decision-making processes and execution. He can have as many advisers as he wants, but until one person has full control over the process, chaos will persist.”
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
[Special] FBI Director James Comey Fired by White House
- New York Times: F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump by Michael D. Shear and Matt Apuzzo
President Trump on Tuesday fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, abruptly terminating the law enforcement official leading a wide-ranging criminal investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s advisers colluded with the Russian government to steer the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
The stunning development in Mr. Trump’s presidency raised the specter of political interference by a sitting president into an existing investigation by the nation’s leading law enforcement agency. It immediately ignited Democratic calls for an independent prosecutor to lead the Russia inquiry.
Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, even though the president was widely seen to have benefited politically from that inquiry and had once praised Mr. Comey for having “guts” in his pursuit of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign.
But in his letter to Mr. Comey, released to reporters by the White House, the president betrayed his focus on the continuing inquiry into Russia and his aides.
“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” Mr. Trump said in a letter to Mr. Comey dated Tuesday.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Rolling Stone: The End of Facts in the Trump Era
By Matt Taibbi:
Commentators wondered aloud if Conway's "Alternative Facts" routine had marked the beginning of a new Orwellian dystopia. Fears in this direction even rocked the publishing industry, where 1984 hit number one on Amazon, triggering a new printing practically overnight.
Facts are the closest thing we have to a national religion. In America, where sex-tapers become royalty and monster trucks massively outdraw Shakespeare, even advertisers aren't supposed to just lie. The truth is the last thing here that isn't openly for sale. This is why so many people responded to Conway not as if she'd said something stupid – we're used to that from our politicians – but more as though she'd said something irreligious.
The Washington Post reported with alarm on this crumbling of the Church of the Fact. As a test, they showed a group of Americans aerial photos of the Trump and Obama inaugurations. An astounding 15 percent of Trump supporters identified the clearly emptier Trump inaugural photo as the one containing a bigger crowd. We're now such a divided people that we literally see the world differently.
A primary characteristic of any authoritarian situation, from East Germany to high school, is the total uselessness of facts and evidence as a defense against anything. Trump is in the White House because he and his people understood this from the start. His movement isn't about facts. All that matters to his followers is that blame stays fixed in the right direction.
The Full Story (February 8, 2017)
Commentators wondered aloud if Conway's "Alternative Facts" routine had marked the beginning of a new Orwellian dystopia. Fears in this direction even rocked the publishing industry, where 1984 hit number one on Amazon, triggering a new printing practically overnight.
Facts are the closest thing we have to a national religion. In America, where sex-tapers become royalty and monster trucks massively outdraw Shakespeare, even advertisers aren't supposed to just lie. The truth is the last thing here that isn't openly for sale. This is why so many people responded to Conway not as if she'd said something stupid – we're used to that from our politicians – but more as though she'd said something irreligious.
The Washington Post reported with alarm on this crumbling of the Church of the Fact. As a test, they showed a group of Americans aerial photos of the Trump and Obama inaugurations. An astounding 15 percent of Trump supporters identified the clearly emptier Trump inaugural photo as the one containing a bigger crowd. We're now such a divided people that we literally see the world differently.
A primary characteristic of any authoritarian situation, from East Germany to high school, is the total uselessness of facts and evidence as a defense against anything. Trump is in the White House because he and his people understood this from the start. His movement isn't about facts. All that matters to his followers is that blame stays fixed in the right direction.
The Full Story (February 8, 2017)
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Talking Points Memo: On Trump, Keep it Simple (In 5 Points)
By Josh Marshall:
1: Trump is a Damaged Personality: Trump is an impulsive narcissist who is easily bored and driven mainly by the desire to chalk up 'wins' which drive the affirmation and praise which are his chief need and drive. He needs to dominate everyone around him and is profoundly susceptible to ego injuries tied to not 'winning', not being the best, not being sufficiently praised and acclaimed, etc. All of this drives a confrontational style and high levels of organizational chaos and drama. This need for praise and affirmation and a lack of patience for understanding the basic details of governing are a volatile and dangerous mix. They catalyze and intensify each other. Perhaps most importantly, the drive to be the best and right drives promises, claims and policy pronouncements which may contradict his already existing positions or be impossible to fulfill. Often, because of this, they are simply forgotten. That is because the need to be right, best and praised drives everything. Everything else is subsidiary and subject to change in an evolving situational context. Once this is clear, much of the chaos becomes logical and predictable. It's folly to imagine that Trump might pivot or grow up or simply be normal. It is no more likely that a chronically anxious adult would suddenly become serene or a charisma-less person would suddenly grow a charisma organ. This is Trump and he will never change.
* * *
But on Trump, in trying to figure out what and how he's doing, we should keep it simple. Because at this point we know Trump quite well.
* * *
3: Trump's Hold on His Base Is Grievance: People continue to marvel how a city-bred, godless libertine who was born to great wealth could become and remain the political avatar of small town and rural voters of middling means. The answer is simple. Despite all their differences, Trump meets his voters in a common perception (real or not) of being shunned, ignored and disrespected by 'elites'. In short, his politics and his connection with his core voters is based on grievance. This is a profound and enduring connection. This part of his constituency likely amounts to only 25% or 30% of the electorate at most. But it is a powerful anchor on the right. His ability to emerge undamaged from an almost endless series of outrages and ridiculousnesses is based on this connection. To paraphrase McLuhan, with Trump, the medium is the message and Trump is the medium.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Talking Points Memo: It Was Never Populism. It's Nationalism.
By Josh Marshall:
Today at the White House CEO event President Trump, leaning on the say-so and presence of big Wall Street CEOs, started ripping up the reforms put in place to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. “We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Trump told JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon.
This should tell us several things. The most important is that 'populism' has always been the wrong name for what Trumpism represents. The unifying message of Trumpism is nationalism, and particularly an aggressive, zero-sum nationalism. It is also summed up simply in "Make America Great Again." The style may be 'populist' in some generic sense. But the message and agenda is nationalism. That is the focus around which all the actions of these rancorous 13 days come together into a unified whole - aggressive attacks on friends and foes alike, threats of tariffs against non-compliant foreign states, clampdowns on immigration, etc.
You'll notice that President Trump often talks about "workers" but it is almost always in the vein of protecting American workers from abuse by foreigners. Especially since the Trump virtually never speaks about wages. And he never spoke about wealth inequality, financial security provided by programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone worker protections or labor unions. One might add job security, affordable education for children and retirement security generally to the list of the undiscussed. The real theme is one Trump articulated clearly yesterday in his National Prayer Breakfast speech: "We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. We're taking advantage of by every nation in the world virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore."
We may say that Trump is flipflopping or being hypocritical by embracing the individuals, policies and priorities of the country's financial elite, who he notionally campaigned against. Both are true in a way. But that doesn't tell us enough. The Trump message was about nationalism, power and aggression against the nations of the world who are 'taking advantage of" us and laughing at us. That kind of aggression against outsiders, with their domestic counterparts, the 'elites', can overlap with economic concerns. They're quite distinct.
But a proper understanding of Trumpism is also a political opportunity for Democrats. Trump is cozying up to the Wall Street barons he campaigned against. He's about to throw 25 million Americans off their health care. “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money,” he said again today, while he also talks about vast tax cuts for his wealthy friends and tax increases for many ordinary working and middle class families. This is a perfect evocation of government by the richest, for the richest, by the rich - and from the President's own lips. The complete indifference to the supposed interests of the people who voted for him has so many examples it's almost comical. Democrats need to be building this storyline now.
The Full Story (February 3, 2017)
Today at the White House CEO event President Trump, leaning on the say-so and presence of big Wall Street CEOs, started ripping up the reforms put in place to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. “We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Trump told JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon.
This should tell us several things. The most important is that 'populism' has always been the wrong name for what Trumpism represents. The unifying message of Trumpism is nationalism, and particularly an aggressive, zero-sum nationalism. It is also summed up simply in "Make America Great Again." The style may be 'populist' in some generic sense. But the message and agenda is nationalism. That is the focus around which all the actions of these rancorous 13 days come together into a unified whole - aggressive attacks on friends and foes alike, threats of tariffs against non-compliant foreign states, clampdowns on immigration, etc.
You'll notice that President Trump often talks about "workers" but it is almost always in the vein of protecting American workers from abuse by foreigners. Especially since the Trump virtually never speaks about wages. And he never spoke about wealth inequality, financial security provided by programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone worker protections or labor unions. One might add job security, affordable education for children and retirement security generally to the list of the undiscussed. The real theme is one Trump articulated clearly yesterday in his National Prayer Breakfast speech: "We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. We're taking advantage of by every nation in the world virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore."
We may say that Trump is flipflopping or being hypocritical by embracing the individuals, policies and priorities of the country's financial elite, who he notionally campaigned against. Both are true in a way. But that doesn't tell us enough. The Trump message was about nationalism, power and aggression against the nations of the world who are 'taking advantage of" us and laughing at us. That kind of aggression against outsiders, with their domestic counterparts, the 'elites', can overlap with economic concerns. They're quite distinct.
But a proper understanding of Trumpism is also a political opportunity for Democrats. Trump is cozying up to the Wall Street barons he campaigned against. He's about to throw 25 million Americans off their health care. “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money,” he said again today, while he also talks about vast tax cuts for his wealthy friends and tax increases for many ordinary working and middle class families. This is a perfect evocation of government by the richest, for the richest, by the rich - and from the President's own lips. The complete indifference to the supposed interests of the people who voted for him has so many examples it's almost comical. Democrats need to be building this storyline now.
The Full Story (February 3, 2017)
Thursday, April 6, 2017
[Special] Revisiting the First Immigration Ban
Lawfare: Malevolence Tempered by Incompetence: Trump’s Horrifying Executive Order on Refugees and Visas by Benjamin Wittes (January 28, 2017)
What’s more, the document also takes steps that strike me as utterly orthogonal to any relevant security interest. If the purpose of the order is the one it describes, for example, I can think of no good reason to burden the lives of students individually suspected of nothing who are here lawfully and just happen to be temporarily overseas, or to detain tourists and refugees who were mid-flight when the order came down. I have trouble imagining any reason to raise questions about whether green card holders who have lived here for years can leave the country and then return. Yes, it’s temporary, and that may lessen the costs (or it may not, depending on the outcome of the policy review the order mandates), but temporarily irrational is still irrational.
Put simply, I don’t believe that the stated purpose is the real purpose. This is the first policy the United States has adopted in the post-9/11 era about which I have ever said this. It’s a grave charge, I know, and I’m not making it lightly. But in the rational pursuit of security objectives, you don’t marginalize your expert security agencies and fail to vet your ideas through a normal interagency process. You don’t target the wrong people in nutty ways when you’re rationally pursuing real security objectives.
When do you do these things? You do these things when you’re elevating the symbolic politics of bashing Islam over any actual security interest. You do them when you’ve made a deliberate decision to burden human lives to make a public point. In other words, this is not a document that will cause hardship and misery because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do.
To be sure, the executive order does not say anything as crass as: “Sec. 14. Burdening Muslim Lives to Make Political Point.” It doesn’t need to. There’s simply no reason in reading it to ignore everything Trump said during the campaign, during which he repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Washington Post: Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor by Jerry Markon, Emma Brown and Katherine Shaver (January 29, 2017) -
A federal judge in New York blocked deportations nationwide late Saturday of those detained on entry to the United States after an executive order from President Trump targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the deportations after determining that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision.
Minutes after the judge’s ruling in New York, another came in Alexandria when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order to block for seven days the removal of any green-card holders being detained at Dulles International Airport. Brinkema’s action also ordered that lawyers have access to those held there because of the ban.
Time: Republicans Begin to Break With President Trump by Philip Elliott/Indian Wells, Calif,Alex Altman (January 29, 2017) -
By Sunday evening, more than a dozen GOP members of Congress had spoken out against Trump’s executive order on immigration. Among them were an array of the party’s most influential figures. The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said the United States should not implement a religious test. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said the plan to strengthen vetting of refugees was itself not vetted. And the political and policy groups led by Charles and David Koch offered their first public criticism of Trump, whose candidacy the billionaire brothers found so unpalatable they sat out the 2016 election.
The wave of criticism marks the end of a startlingly brief honeymoon period for a new President who has been in office for scarcely a week, and even set the White House on defense as it backtracked on the ban applying to green-card holders. And while much of the blowback was driven by Trump’s immigration orders, the controversial plans he has on the horizon suggest the rest of his term could be just as rocky.
The emerging rifts come amid mass protests in cities around the U.S. against an executive order that would block millions of people from entering the United States. Legal permanent U.S. residents were detained at airports, refugees were trapped en route to the United States and judges from coast to coast stepped in to stop the unprecedented White House action. The chaos knocked the White House back on its heels and prompted Trump on Sunday night to release a defense of the policy.
What’s more, the document also takes steps that strike me as utterly orthogonal to any relevant security interest. If the purpose of the order is the one it describes, for example, I can think of no good reason to burden the lives of students individually suspected of nothing who are here lawfully and just happen to be temporarily overseas, or to detain tourists and refugees who were mid-flight when the order came down. I have trouble imagining any reason to raise questions about whether green card holders who have lived here for years can leave the country and then return. Yes, it’s temporary, and that may lessen the costs (or it may not, depending on the outcome of the policy review the order mandates), but temporarily irrational is still irrational.
Put simply, I don’t believe that the stated purpose is the real purpose. This is the first policy the United States has adopted in the post-9/11 era about which I have ever said this. It’s a grave charge, I know, and I’m not making it lightly. But in the rational pursuit of security objectives, you don’t marginalize your expert security agencies and fail to vet your ideas through a normal interagency process. You don’t target the wrong people in nutty ways when you’re rationally pursuing real security objectives.
When do you do these things? You do these things when you’re elevating the symbolic politics of bashing Islam over any actual security interest. You do them when you’ve made a deliberate decision to burden human lives to make a public point. In other words, this is not a document that will cause hardship and misery because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do.
To be sure, the executive order does not say anything as crass as: “Sec. 14. Burdening Muslim Lives to Make Political Point.” It doesn’t need to. There’s simply no reason in reading it to ignore everything Trump said during the campaign, during which he repeatedly called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Washington Post: Judge halts deportations as refugee ban causes worldwide furor by Jerry Markon, Emma Brown and Katherine Shaver (January 29, 2017) -
A federal judge in New York blocked deportations nationwide late Saturday of those detained on entry to the United States after an executive order from President Trump targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the deportations after determining that the risk of injury to those detained by being returned to their home countries necessitated the decision.
Minutes after the judge’s ruling in New York, another came in Alexandria when U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order to block for seven days the removal of any green-card holders being detained at Dulles International Airport. Brinkema’s action also ordered that lawyers have access to those held there because of the ban.
Time: Republicans Begin to Break With President Trump by Philip Elliott/Indian Wells, Calif,Alex Altman (January 29, 2017) -
By Sunday evening, more than a dozen GOP members of Congress had spoken out against Trump’s executive order on immigration. Among them were an array of the party’s most influential figures. The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said the United States should not implement a religious test. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said the plan to strengthen vetting of refugees was itself not vetted. And the political and policy groups led by Charles and David Koch offered their first public criticism of Trump, whose candidacy the billionaire brothers found so unpalatable they sat out the 2016 election.
The wave of criticism marks the end of a startlingly brief honeymoon period for a new President who has been in office for scarcely a week, and even set the White House on defense as it backtracked on the ban applying to green-card holders. And while much of the blowback was driven by Trump’s immigration orders, the controversial plans he has on the horizon suggest the rest of his term could be just as rocky.
The emerging rifts come amid mass protests in cities around the U.S. against an executive order that would block millions of people from entering the United States. Legal permanent U.S. residents were detained at airports, refugees were trapped en route to the United States and judges from coast to coast stepped in to stop the unprecedented White House action. The chaos knocked the White House back on its heels and prompted Trump on Sunday night to release a defense of the policy.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Washington Post: Trump’s Politicized Immigration Acts Are at Odds With American Values
By WaPo Editorial Board:
In fact, the nation’s southern border is already well staffed with Border Patrol agents, whose numbers have more than doubled, under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, since the Sept. 11 attacks. The number of illegal crossings is near a 40-year low. If the goal is really to make the border even more secure, better technology would be the way to go. If Congress goes along, a lot of money will be wasted, given cost estimates for the wall alone well in excess of $10 billion — but it won’t be the first time the U.S. government has managed to misspend vast sums.
Far more damaging, to American principles and the nation’s standing in the world, would be actions outlined in a draft executive order, apparently awaiting Mr. Trump’s signature, that would drastically curtail the United States’ commitment to accept refugees from Muslim-majority countries in the Mideast, especially Syria, most of whom are fleeing terrorism. Such refugees should be subject to extensive background checks and other vetting before being granted U.S. visas — as they already are. But a blanket ban would compromise this nation’s long-standing position as a sanctuary for desperate and innocent people. As a backdoor way for Mr. Trump to partially make good on his proposed Muslim ban, it also would be an affront to this country’s status as an example of religious tolerance.
The Full Story (January 25, 2017)
In fact, the nation’s southern border is already well staffed with Border Patrol agents, whose numbers have more than doubled, under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, since the Sept. 11 attacks. The number of illegal crossings is near a 40-year low. If the goal is really to make the border even more secure, better technology would be the way to go. If Congress goes along, a lot of money will be wasted, given cost estimates for the wall alone well in excess of $10 billion — but it won’t be the first time the U.S. government has managed to misspend vast sums.
Far more damaging, to American principles and the nation’s standing in the world, would be actions outlined in a draft executive order, apparently awaiting Mr. Trump’s signature, that would drastically curtail the United States’ commitment to accept refugees from Muslim-majority countries in the Mideast, especially Syria, most of whom are fleeing terrorism. Such refugees should be subject to extensive background checks and other vetting before being granted U.S. visas — as they already are. But a blanket ban would compromise this nation’s long-standing position as a sanctuary for desperate and innocent people. As a backdoor way for Mr. Trump to partially make good on his proposed Muslim ban, it also would be an affront to this country’s status as an example of religious tolerance.
The Full Story (January 25, 2017)
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
GQ: We Are Running Out of Ways to Say That President Trump Is a Dangerous, Delusional Lunatic
By Jay Willis:
It's easy to laugh at this, both because you appreciate farce and because you need to do something to mask the pain, but there's an insidious sleight of hand here. It is true that there are dead people who are registered to vote, since most people forget to notify their county elections board of their death. It is also true that there are people—like Steve Bannon, Steven Mnuchin, and the president's own daughter—who, because they have lived in more than one state of late, still appear on more than one voter roll. To be clear, neither one of these true statements has any effect on the integrity of election outcomes, but they're at least...true. When it comes to this president, that's borderline cause for celebration.
Along with these two truths, though, President Trump throws in one outlandish, demonstrably false lie: that there are undocumented immigrants who illegally vote. This tinfoil hat fodder has been debunked by just about everyone you can imagine, but by sandwiching his lie between two truths to make it appear less egregious, he signals to Republican-controlled state governments that they have carte blanche to engage in voter suppression efforts, so long as they give it some septic, administrative-sounding label like "tidying up," "cleaning house," or "updating the voting rolls." Guess which registrations mysteriously and disproportionately disappear during exercises like these? Click if you want, but be honest: You already know.
Processing President Trump's democracy-destroying hijinks du jour has already become an exhausting exercise, because the man is committing his crimes against reality so quickly that there's scarcely time to dissect the horrifying implications of one before another comes along, short-circuits the alarm cycle, and starts it all over again. He is walking chaos theory: if he just keeps the hits coming fast enough, the very real danger is that the collective national outrage will first give way to apathy, and then to resignation.
The best way for Americans to fight these feelings of helplessness and hopelessness is to search out new, creative ways to channel their entirely justified fury toward some good, productive use. Midterm elections are less than two years away, but between now and then, President Trump has made it very clear that some bullshit of epic proportions is coming down the pike, so start with this: go make damn sure you're registered to vote.
The Full Story (January 25, 2017)
It's easy to laugh at this, both because you appreciate farce and because you need to do something to mask the pain, but there's an insidious sleight of hand here. It is true that there are dead people who are registered to vote, since most people forget to notify their county elections board of their death. It is also true that there are people—like Steve Bannon, Steven Mnuchin, and the president's own daughter—who, because they have lived in more than one state of late, still appear on more than one voter roll. To be clear, neither one of these true statements has any effect on the integrity of election outcomes, but they're at least...true. When it comes to this president, that's borderline cause for celebration.
Along with these two truths, though, President Trump throws in one outlandish, demonstrably false lie: that there are undocumented immigrants who illegally vote. This tinfoil hat fodder has been debunked by just about everyone you can imagine, but by sandwiching his lie between two truths to make it appear less egregious, he signals to Republican-controlled state governments that they have carte blanche to engage in voter suppression efforts, so long as they give it some septic, administrative-sounding label like "tidying up," "cleaning house," or "updating the voting rolls." Guess which registrations mysteriously and disproportionately disappear during exercises like these? Click if you want, but be honest: You already know.
Processing President Trump's democracy-destroying hijinks du jour has already become an exhausting exercise, because the man is committing his crimes against reality so quickly that there's scarcely time to dissect the horrifying implications of one before another comes along, short-circuits the alarm cycle, and starts it all over again. He is walking chaos theory: if he just keeps the hits coming fast enough, the very real danger is that the collective national outrage will first give way to apathy, and then to resignation.
The best way for Americans to fight these feelings of helplessness and hopelessness is to search out new, creative ways to channel their entirely justified fury toward some good, productive use. Midterm elections are less than two years away, but between now and then, President Trump has made it very clear that some bullshit of epic proportions is coming down the pike, so start with this: go make damn sure you're registered to vote.
Friday, March 31, 2017
New York Times: 'We the People' Demand Mr. Trump Release His Tax Returns
By Times Editorial Board:
The administration dismisses these pleas for honesty, arguing that only journalists care about Mr. Trump’s tax returns and conflicts of interest — a claim that a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll disproved. It found that 74 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Republicans, believe that Mr. Trump’s tax returns should be made public.
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to Mr. Trump and his chief obfuscator, told ABC News on Sunday that “he’s not going to release his tax returns,” adding that the election showed that “people didn’t care.” On Monday, she pulled back a tad, tweeting that “POTUS is under audit and will not release until that is completed.” Of course, even that comment is a ruse. The Internal Revenue Service has made clear that being under audit wouldn’t preclude Mr. Trump from making his returns public.
Yet, the Trump campaign used that excuse over and over, and now Mr. Trump has carried it into the White House. White House officials are probably hoping that the longer they stonewall, the more likely that public demands on this matter will be pushed aside as torrents of controversial policies and statements from Mr. Trump dominate the news cycle. Even so, voters and members of Congress who care about ethics in the nation’s highest office should not let up.
The administration dismisses these pleas for honesty, arguing that only journalists care about Mr. Trump’s tax returns and conflicts of interest — a claim that a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll disproved. It found that 74 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Republicans, believe that Mr. Trump’s tax returns should be made public.
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to Mr. Trump and his chief obfuscator, told ABC News on Sunday that “he’s not going to release his tax returns,” adding that the election showed that “people didn’t care.” On Monday, she pulled back a tad, tweeting that “POTUS is under audit and will not release until that is completed.” Of course, even that comment is a ruse. The Internal Revenue Service has made clear that being under audit wouldn’t preclude Mr. Trump from making his returns public.
Yet, the Trump campaign used that excuse over and over, and now Mr. Trump has carried it into the White House. White House officials are probably hoping that the longer they stonewall, the more likely that public demands on this matter will be pushed aside as torrents of controversial policies and statements from Mr. Trump dominate the news cycle. Even so, voters and members of Congress who care about ethics in the nation’s highest office should not let up.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Washington Post: Closing Doors on Trade Isn’t Smart Negotiating
By WaPo Editorial Board:
Mr. Trump now turns his attention to the North American Free Trade Agreement, under which the flow of goods and services among the United States, Canada and Mexico has multiplied many times over since the pact took effect in 1994. Mr. Trump talks endlessly and extravagantly of jobs “stolen” by Mexico under NAFTA, and much manufacturing work has migrated from American factories to Mexican ones. A renegotiation of NAFTA, which Mr. Trump claims to want, beginning with upcoming conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, is not inherently a bad idea. What relationship wouldn’t benefit from a tuneup after a quarter-century? Specifically, there may be a need to revisit NAFTA’s “domestic content” rules to make sure products that flow tariff-free among the three countries truly originate within one of them.
That assumes Mr. Trump comes to the table in good faith and with a balanced view of relevant facts. His fixation on high-profile automobile plant sitings in Mexico — coupled with his repeated threats of a “border tax” on firms that exercise their rights to produce there — does not inspire confidence.
Automation, not trade, is the real culprit in manufacturing job loss. And while NAFTA has surely created winners and losers within the United States, overall it has not been the horrific deal Mr. Trump suggests. The combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada was $73.4 billion in 2015 (the most recent full year for which data exist). Subtract petroleum and it shrinks to $13.9 billion, a rounding error for the $18 trillion U.S. economy. Chances are that the deficit will shrink as American oil producers crank up for exports.
A smart negotiator would take all that into account before risking trade wars that might do far more damage to American companies, workers and consumers than the status quo allegedly does.
Full Story (January 24, 2017)
Mr. Trump now turns his attention to the North American Free Trade Agreement, under which the flow of goods and services among the United States, Canada and Mexico has multiplied many times over since the pact took effect in 1994. Mr. Trump talks endlessly and extravagantly of jobs “stolen” by Mexico under NAFTA, and much manufacturing work has migrated from American factories to Mexican ones. A renegotiation of NAFTA, which Mr. Trump claims to want, beginning with upcoming conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, is not inherently a bad idea. What relationship wouldn’t benefit from a tuneup after a quarter-century? Specifically, there may be a need to revisit NAFTA’s “domestic content” rules to make sure products that flow tariff-free among the three countries truly originate within one of them.
That assumes Mr. Trump comes to the table in good faith and with a balanced view of relevant facts. His fixation on high-profile automobile plant sitings in Mexico — coupled with his repeated threats of a “border tax” on firms that exercise their rights to produce there — does not inspire confidence.
Automation, not trade, is the real culprit in manufacturing job loss. And while NAFTA has surely created winners and losers within the United States, overall it has not been the horrific deal Mr. Trump suggests. The combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada was $73.4 billion in 2015 (the most recent full year for which data exist). Subtract petroleum and it shrinks to $13.9 billion, a rounding error for the $18 trillion U.S. economy. Chances are that the deficit will shrink as American oil producers crank up for exports.
A smart negotiator would take all that into account before risking trade wars that might do far more damage to American companies, workers and consumers than the status quo allegedly does.
Full Story (January 24, 2017)
Friday, March 24, 2017
The Atlantic: Cheapening a Sacred Space
By Andrew Exum:
The Memorial Wall is one of the most haunting memorials I have ever seen in the U.S. federal government—more unsettling than any military cemetery I have visited, from Gettysburg to Normandy. Below the famous anonymous stars themselves sits a book that explains the year each star was added and, sometimes, offers the name of the Agency case officer or analyst killed. Some stars—even some stars going back decades, to the height of the Cold War—do not have a name that accompanies them.
It is sobering to realize that each of those stars on that wall represent hundreds of men and women who had the courage to do what I could not bring myself to do: leave their friends and family and sign up for one of the most lonely, demanding jobs in the U.S. government—all with the knowledge that if they were caught, they faced not only torture and a gruesome death but the prospect that their families might never learn how or why they died.
That’s why the Agency employees with whom I spoke over the weekend were appalled by the president’s speech—that he would cheapen the most sacred space at the Agency, that their leadership would allow it to happen, and that some of their co-workers would disgrace themselves and the Agency by raucously applauding lines from a stump speech.
It’s tough to place too much blame on the Agency’s leadership: Their position with the new president is tenuous, at best. The Agency needs some very important things from the president. It needs him to take his daily briefing, and to take seriously—and keep quiet about—the clandestine operations for which the Agency puts the lives of Americans at grave danger. There is little reason for optimism thus far that the president will deliver on either requirement.
But while it’s tough for anyone to say no to the boss—especially when placed at such a disadvantage up front—the Agency’s leadership is going to encounter a staff today that is livid with the way in which the speech was delivered. The fact the speech was given on a Saturday, when only those Agency employees most enthusiastic about the new president would come in off their weekends, will also be a point of dissatisfaction. For those who weren’t there or for the leaders sitting in the front row, some may feel they were made to look a fool, seeing their Agency turned into another campaign rally and hearing their professionalism questioned—yet again—by the media.
Quite apart from the Agency, though, all Americans should have been worried by the substance of what the president said. I have spent much of my adult life in the national-security institutions of this country and am inclined to consider them largely benign. But even I was unnerved by the president going before the world’s most powerful intelligence service and declaring war on the media.
Think about this, for one moment: The president stood before an organization that runs innumerable clandestine, deniable operations and called out, by name, a journalist who had displeased him before a laughing, clapping crowd. You do not have to be a member of the American Civil Liberties Union to be scared by that.
You also don’t have to be one of the several thousand Americans deployed to Iraq to understand how the line about taking Iraq’s oil will go down there. Trump’s rhetoric along these lines was a problem when he was a candidate. Now that he is the president, Iran’s militias and their media will have a field day, putting the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk.
The Memorial Wall is one of the most haunting memorials I have ever seen in the U.S. federal government—more unsettling than any military cemetery I have visited, from Gettysburg to Normandy. Below the famous anonymous stars themselves sits a book that explains the year each star was added and, sometimes, offers the name of the Agency case officer or analyst killed. Some stars—even some stars going back decades, to the height of the Cold War—do not have a name that accompanies them.
It is sobering to realize that each of those stars on that wall represent hundreds of men and women who had the courage to do what I could not bring myself to do: leave their friends and family and sign up for one of the most lonely, demanding jobs in the U.S. government—all with the knowledge that if they were caught, they faced not only torture and a gruesome death but the prospect that their families might never learn how or why they died.
That’s why the Agency employees with whom I spoke over the weekend were appalled by the president’s speech—that he would cheapen the most sacred space at the Agency, that their leadership would allow it to happen, and that some of their co-workers would disgrace themselves and the Agency by raucously applauding lines from a stump speech.
It’s tough to place too much blame on the Agency’s leadership: Their position with the new president is tenuous, at best. The Agency needs some very important things from the president. It needs him to take his daily briefing, and to take seriously—and keep quiet about—the clandestine operations for which the Agency puts the lives of Americans at grave danger. There is little reason for optimism thus far that the president will deliver on either requirement.
But while it’s tough for anyone to say no to the boss—especially when placed at such a disadvantage up front—the Agency’s leadership is going to encounter a staff today that is livid with the way in which the speech was delivered. The fact the speech was given on a Saturday, when only those Agency employees most enthusiastic about the new president would come in off their weekends, will also be a point of dissatisfaction. For those who weren’t there or for the leaders sitting in the front row, some may feel they were made to look a fool, seeing their Agency turned into another campaign rally and hearing their professionalism questioned—yet again—by the media.
Quite apart from the Agency, though, all Americans should have been worried by the substance of what the president said. I have spent much of my adult life in the national-security institutions of this country and am inclined to consider them largely benign. But even I was unnerved by the president going before the world’s most powerful intelligence service and declaring war on the media.
Think about this, for one moment: The president stood before an organization that runs innumerable clandestine, deniable operations and called out, by name, a journalist who had displeased him before a laughing, clapping crowd. You do not have to be a member of the American Civil Liberties Union to be scared by that.
You also don’t have to be one of the several thousand Americans deployed to Iraq to understand how the line about taking Iraq’s oil will go down there. Trump’s rhetoric along these lines was a problem when he was a candidate. Now that he is the president, Iran’s militias and their media will have a field day, putting the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Talking Points Memo:: A Few Thoughts on Mike Flynn
By Josh Marshall:
To do his or her job the National Security Advisor must have access to literally all of the US government's secrets. Their role is to bring together and synthesize the information coming from every part of the US government touching on national defense, security and diplomacy. The Pentagon, the various intelligence services, diplomacy emerging from the State Department - the NSC Advisor must have a full view into all of those. Nothing can be secret or hidden from the them because what is secret from the National Security Advisor is essentially secret from the President.
Any restrictions on the National Security Advisor's right to know, let only any question about his loyalty or ties to foreign governments, makes his position untenable. In terms of the impracticality of the situation, as opposed to the consequences, it is almost tantamount to the President himself being under such scrutiny.
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)
To do his or her job the National Security Advisor must have access to literally all of the US government's secrets. Their role is to bring together and synthesize the information coming from every part of the US government touching on national defense, security and diplomacy. The Pentagon, the various intelligence services, diplomacy emerging from the State Department - the NSC Advisor must have a full view into all of those. Nothing can be secret or hidden from the them because what is secret from the National Security Advisor is essentially secret from the President.
Any restrictions on the National Security Advisor's right to know, let only any question about his loyalty or ties to foreign governments, makes his position untenable. In terms of the impracticality of the situation, as opposed to the consequences, it is almost tantamount to the President himself being under such scrutiny.
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Salon: President Trump, Torture Fan
By Heather Digby Parton:
The Full Story (January 20, 2017)
One of the great misconceptions about Donald Trump throughout the presidential campaign was the mistaken idea that because he said kind words about Vladimir Putin and insisted he had been against the Iraq invasion that he was an old-school isolationist. For some reason these people ignored the fact that Trump’s stated philosophy of life is very consistent and very explicit:
Get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades. I really mean it. I really mean it. You’ve got to hit people hard and it’s not so much for that person; it’s that other people watch.
He believes in demonstrating power against people who “disrespect” him personally and who, in his mind, disrespect the United States. Over many years he has said that he believes the rest of the world is laughing at us and he is determined to make them stop.
* * *
He is rather childlike in many respects, so watching things that go boom undoubtedly excites him. But other countries have done this to prove their military superiority and that’s surely what Trump thinks is necessary as well. He truly does not understand that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States has the mightiest military on Earth. Indeed, a decision by the U.S. that it needs to “show” this would probably be seen as a sign of insecurity and weakness, if it weren’t for the fact that everyone can see that the country is now being led by the American version of Kim Jong-un.
With all the hubbub around the inauguration, a lot of things that would normally call for scrutiny and discussion are falling through the cracks. A story in The New York Times about newly released documents from the George W. Bush administration’s torture program is one of them; that’s unfortunate. After all, our new president isn’t just a man who believes waterboarding is a regrettable necessity. He’s a big fan as he has said[.]
The Full Story (January 20, 2017)
Monday, March 13, 2017
[Special] Revisiting Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017
All articles from January 20, 2017.
The Atlantic: 'America First' - Donald Trump's Populist Inaugural Address by David A. Graham
Reciting a litany of horribles including gangs, drugs, crime, poverty, and unemployment, Trump told the nation, “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
The Atlantic: 'America First' - Donald Trump's Populist Inaugural Address by David A. Graham
Reciting a litany of horribles including gangs, drugs, crime, poverty, and unemployment, Trump told the nation, “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
The inaugural address was unusually dark and political, delivered in a forum where new presidents have tended to reach for a language of unity, positivity, and non-partisanship. In many ways, the speech drew directly from the tone and approach of Trump’s often very-negative campaign rally speeches, once again showing that the “pivot” many observers have long expected Trump to make toward a more unifying and detached tone, is not coming. President Trump so far looks much the same as candidate Trump, and his speech was a strange milestone in a strange rise to power, one that was viewed as impossible just months ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)