[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 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.

Huffington Post: Trump Sought Military Equipment For Inauguration, Granted 20-Plane Flyover

By Jessica Schulberg:

Trump spoke about his vision of military parades in vague terms, suggesting it was something he might oversee in the future. But according to several sources involved in his inaugural preparations, Trump has endeavored to ensure that his first day as commander-in-chief is marked by an unusual display of heavy military equipment.

During the preparation for Friday’s transfer-of-power, a member of Trump’s transition team floated the idea of including tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade, a source involved in inaugural planning told The Huffington Post. “They were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade,” the source said, referring to massive military parades in Moscow and Pyongyang, typically seen as an aggressive display of muscle-flexing.

The military, which traditionally works closely with the presidential inaugural committee, shot down the request, the source said. Their reason was twofold. Some were concerned about the optics of having tanks and missile launchers rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue. But they also worried that the tanks, which often weigh over 100,000 pounds, would destroy the roads.

“I could absolutely see structural support being a reason [not to use tanks],” a Department of Defense official said. “D.C. is built on a swamp to begin with.”

The Full Story (January 19, 2017)

Talking Points Memo: Feds Investigating Money Transfers & Communications Between Russia And Trump Associates

By Josh Marshall:

Just to state this clearly, that means that on the eve of Trump's inauguration the nation's top law enforcement and intelligence agencies are pursuing a counter-intelligence probe of contacts and payments between key members of his campaign and Russia. We have not been here before.

* * *
One point to keep in mind. After noon tomorrow [January 20], each of these agencies will work for Donald Trump. He could simply order them to stop. That might be unethical. It might be wrong. People might resign. But all of these people work for the President. Unsurprisingly, this appears to be the main reason for the leaks. From the Times: "Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts."

The other thread of the story is that the Senate is also beginning to investigate this. Trump can't shut that down, though ultimately the Senate has to work through the intelligence agencies to probe these matters. It gets complicated.

The Full Story (January 19, 2017)

New York Times: Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

By Michael S. Schmidt, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.

The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.

Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

The Full Story (January 19, 2017)

Washington Post: Treasury Pick Emerges Smiling From Testy Hearing

By Ylan Q. Mui:

Treasury nominee Steven T. Mnuchin spent 17 years working at Goldman Sachs, part of what President-elect Donald Trump once called the “global power structure” that has “robbed” American workers. Mnuchin’s financial disclosures revealed ties to business entities in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Anguilla. Mnuchin managed a California bank accused of aggressively foreclosing on senior citizens — and then sold it for billions of dollars.

In previous presidential administrations, any one of those items might have been enough to sink a Cabinet nominee. But after a testy five-hour confirmation hearing Thursday, Mnuchin emerged bruised but not battered, upbeat and smiling as he left behind a gaggle of reporters to begin the countdown until Trump takes his place in the White House.

“You’ve certainly impressed a lot of people here, especially me,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) told Mnuchin as the hearing wrapped up. “We’re going to help you get through this ordeal. You have friends on this committee on both sides of the aisle.”

Many of Trump’s choices to fill his Cabinet are facing sharp criticism of their records and questions about potential conflicts of interest. But at least so far, none of those potential red flags have emerged as roadblocks to confirmation.

The Full Story (January 19, 2017)

The Atlantic: Can School Choice Work in Rural Areas?

By Hayley Glatter:

Education Secretary-nominee Betsy DeVos offered little clarification of her policy goals at Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing, but one thing is certain: The Michigan billionaire is in favor of school choice. She has backed charter schools and voucher programs in the past, though she is adamant that this position does not equate to being anti-public school. At the hearing, both Republican Senator Mike Enzi, who represents Wyoming, and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, brought up the unique challenges rural states face in education structure and financing. Both spoke of the distance issues students in frontier areas combat to physically get to non-public schools, and Murkowski referenced her constituents who are concerned about what happens when “there is no way to get to an alternative option for your child.” This structural problem—further entrenched by the reality that there are simply fewer students to populate new schools that might open—presents a tangled web of unequal supply and demand for charter schools. The “choice” aspect of school choice is not always realistic.

I spoke to Karen Eppley, an associate professor in the Pennsylvania State University College of Education and the editor of the Journal in Rural Research and Education, about what DeVos’s goals for education mean for sparsely populated states. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Hayley Glatter: What aspects of education in rural areas affect how a model favoring school choice would be implemented there?

Karen Eppley: School choice is really complicated in rural areas not only because of the distance and financial constraints that many rural families have, but also because rural schools tend to function as anchors in their communities. Rural citizens tend to be highly involved with their schools; the schools are often the social anchor of the community, and they provide services not available elsewhere, like sports, summer lunch programs, night classes, and food pantries. They also tend to be major employers. Because so many families are so heavily involved in their community schools and have these social ties, the decision to withdraw their children and take them elsewhere—whether to a charter or a private school—has effects beyond just the daily school attendance.

The Full Story (January 19, 2017)

Think Progress: The 4 Biggest Problems With Trump’s Choice to Head the EPA

By Alison Cassady:

1. Pruitt has significant conflicts of interest.

Several Democratic Senators asked Pruitt about his ties to the oil and gas industry.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) asked Pruitt several questions about a letter he sent the EPA in 2011 written almost entirely by Devon Energy. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sharply questioned Pruitt about his fundraising from oil and gas companies and other fossil fuel interests.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) raised a different concern, one that an independent watchdog has already asked the EPA ethics office to examine. As Attorney General, Pruitt has sued the EPA 14 times to block pollution limits, and several of those cases remain pending. If confirmed as EPA administrator, Pruitt will become the defendant in these suits and also would have authority to modify the rules at issue in the litigation. As Markey said, Pruitt would become “plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury.” He repeatedly pressed Pruitt to recuse himself in these cases. Pruitt only committed to recusing himself if directed by the EPA ethics office.

The Full Story (January 19, 2017)