Category Archives: Politics

Experimental Blog Post re The Sound of Apple Carts Being Knocked Over

WARNING: Before getting into the substance, and because I am so ____ bewildered and more than a little ____ off, I have written this post with blanks so you, in the privacy of wherever you read these things, can fill in the blanks with whatever words you’re comfortable with. Such words may be namby pamby or they may be harshly vulgar. That’s up to you. No one will know but you. If so inclined, let me know what you think of this form of blog post as a way of communally but also privately sharing your feelings, at least with yourself. If that makes sense. I’m not sure it does. But whatever you do, when you come to one of the blanks do not think of vulgar words; think instead of something else that’s just as good. Really. Try.

Did you ever wonder what an apple cart sounds like when it’s knocked over? No? I thought not. Most people in the modern world never come in contact with an apple cart, let alone one that has been knocked over within earshot. But apple carts are being knocked over left and right (well, mostly left) in Washington with the arrival of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who defeated a popular Democratic incumbent (actually the voters did it, but that’s a detail), and Rashida Tlaib, the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress. Ocasio-Cortez is also known as AOC. How cool is that? One week on the job in Washington and she’s her own acronym.  Donald Trumpski thinks she’s a new govt agency and can’t understand why he didn’t get to appoint her and can’t fire her.

Rep. Tlaib shocked the formerly Free World by using a profanity in a statement to a group of supporters, a profanity that, in the world of profanities, seems entirely suited to its target, the traitor-in-chief, Donald Trumpski. But you would have thought Tlaib had actually assaulted someone on the floor of Congress. The _____ Republicans were apoplectic. It’s one thing for Trumpski to say he could shoot someone and not lose votes, but for a woman, a freshman, a Muslim for _____ sake, to call Trumpski a “bad word, why this could be the end of civilization itself.  A “sad” day for the Republic, they said. Their delicate sensibilities couldn’t stand such coarseness. Oh my, I think I have the vapors, I may pass out.

The _____ Democrats too were quick to pounce on the use of profanity in politics. What have things come to? Not constructive, they said. Not moving in the right direction. ____ it. More on this in a moment.

So, what was the first reaction from the “establishment” on the left? Here are some examples:

  • Shut up!
  • Toe the party line
  • Mind your manners
  • Submit to the “rules” of decorum that we wrote in anticipation that one day someone like you might be elected
  • Stop calling attention to yourself, _____
  • Wait your turn – we’ll let you know, ______
  • Stay in your lane
  • Speak only when spoken to
  • Ask permission before proposing a policy your elders might not like
  • Above all – shut up: Congress is where good ideas go to die

And, on the right? Well, I’ll be ______, you’d have thought Mitch McConnell had voted for national health insurance. The right was both mightily offended and simultaneously gleeful that new targets for their misogyny and racism had arrived. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, unhappy with his new role of powerlessness, was quick to demand that Speaker Pelosi “reprimand” Tlaib. Pelosi rightly responded that she was not in the censorship business. _________. If hypocrite McCarthy wants to reprimand someone, he should start with the leader of his own party. When he brings Trumpski to heel, he can think about imposing his personal standards of propriety on others. What a _____ moron.

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Republicans are having hysterical hypocritical meltdowns over a freshman Congressperson using a vulgarity in relation to the supposed President who has built his entire persona around “telling it like it is,” including the use of a multitude of vulgarities, all available on video even as he, with his usual practice of lying about almost everything, denies that he said what he said. Instead of ganging up on the Democratic newcomers, the _______ Democrats should be making videos of all of the lying and hypocrisy on the right, including their claims that they want to protect health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions, then post the videos on every right-wing social media site every day until the next election.

AOC blew Republican minds when a video was released of her dancing in college. Imagine that! Dancing in college. _______! She responded … with more dancing. There was a profound lesson in that move that the Republicans, as usual, failed to grasp. Later, she spelled it out more clearly on Twitter:

“None of you understand. I’m not locked up in here with YOU. You’re locked up in here with ME.”

BOOM!! EMT squads were dispatched to Capitol Hill to resuscitate Republicans who suddenly found themselves unable to breathe. There were no reported fatalities but ashen-faced Republicans retreated to a secret meeting to discuss their next attacks on the freshmen Democrats who threaten the entire world order of old white men by having ideas and the willingness to express them.

It’s doubly interesting and profoundly disturbing, I think, that the media have played a facilitating role in the shock and dismay at Tlaib’s alleged darkening of political discourse in the Nation’s capitol. A front-page article in the New York Times on January 5, entitled “Cry to Impeach Upsets Agenda for Democrats,” described Tlaib’s remarks as an “expletive-laden impeachment promise” that was going to “upend the bonhomie of a new Congress.”

Bonhomie? Really? In _____ Congress? Give me a ____ break. One remark by a freshman congressperson upsets the entire Democratic agenda? That must have been some ___ agenda. Where does the MSM get this tripe?

The Washington Post joined the chorus with a front-page article the same day, entitled “House freshman’s cursing revives impeachment talk.” CBS News referred to the statement as “harsh.” https://cbsn.ws/2D374GL

There is so much here, I almost don’t know where to begin, but I will plunge ahead. I understand that media writers have little time to produce their stories against deadlines and the ever-present concept of “breaking news” that they employ to get our attention. But I still expect some respect for the English language by them and/or their editors. I was particularly struck by the use of “expletive-laden” in the Times piece. The click-bait title of a Jan. 4 piece by the Washington Post refers to the speech as “profanity-laced.” https://wapo.st/2M4nwtq

Google reports that “laden” means “heavily loaded or weighed down.”  Tlaib used the “bad word” once at the end of her remarks. I suppose one can argue that the word is so powerful in some way that even a single use infects everything adjacent that then becomes “laden,” but frankly, I think the Times andd the Post simply chose to make more of the statement than it could carry by itself. The so-called mainstream media had best be careful lest their already tenuous hold on the popular mind is completely severed. If they want to criticize, do some homework and use English. Leave the click-bait _____ to Twitter and Facebook.

The other thought is this: does anyone really believe that words like that used by Tlaib are not thrown about by politicians in the Capitol all the time when they don’t think anyone’s listening but their fellow inmates? Really? ____ that ____. And can it possibly be true that the Democratic establishment is not aware that many many many people have been openly talking about impeaching Trumpski for two years??? The talk started the minute he was elected.

The final thought about this particular dustup is that the Democrats who are running around giving quotes to the press critical of Tlaib are feeding the beast that threatens to defeat them and our democracy. The CBS News article cited above reports that a huge majority of Americans support impeaching Trumpski. If Democrats from the Old Guard think impeachment right now is a bad idea, fine, say so, but why join the ______ Republican feeding frenzy in attacking Tlaib for using a “nasty” about Trumpski. Why is it that the Old Guard doesn’t understand by now that things have changed?

The reality of national politics is that people like AOC and Tlaib are not intimidated by the mere presence of the Old Guard. They, and the Americans who elected them, are fed up with the Old Guard that opened the door to the election of a traitor and incompetent like Donald Trump and they are fed up with the _____ Republicans who are failing to do their job to rein in a president who is out of control and blatantly unqualified for his job. Democrats had best take heed or more apple carts will be knocked over and they won’t know what the ___ hit them.

Republican House Members Baying at the Moon

I have just finished reading the entire 235-page transcript of the Executive Session Committee on the Judiciary, Joint with the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, December 7, 2018 in which the Republican majority questioned James Comey, former Director of the FBI about the same set of issues related to his public statements during the runup to the 2016 election and to his explanation of why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not charged with criminal conduct related to her misuse of emails.

Suffice to say, the Republicans failed yet again to lay a glove on Comey, and I say that recognizing that many people, myself included, disagree strongly with his decision to tell the world, on the eve of the election, that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton because of the discovery of a trove of her emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, husband of Clinton aide, Huma Abedin

After all the questioning and posturing, only two things emerged that are even interesting at this point in time.

One was the effort by Rep. Trey Gowdy, to compare unfavorably the treatment of Clinton regarding whether she had simply “made a mistake” and the treatment of President Trump and General Michael Flynn on the question whether on the question of his potential attempt at obstruction of justice by asking Comey to drop the Flynn matter. Recall that Comey immediately prepared a memo about Trump’s demand and shared it with senior people at the FBI.

In classic fashion for the Republicans, Gowdy suggested that a statement by former President Obama had stated, while in office, that “the target of an investigation that was ongoing simply made a mistake and lacked the requisite criminal intent.” Gowdy demanded to know whether Comey didn’t think that Obama’s statement was “potentially obstruction of justice.”

“Mr. Comey. I didn’t see it as — through the lens of obstruction of justice. I saw it as threatening our ability to credibly complete the investigation.

Mr. Gowdy. In what way?

Mr. Comey. The President of the United States offering a view on a matter or a case that’s under investigation, when that President is of the same party as the subject of the investigation and working for her election, would tend to cast doubt in reasonable people’s minds about whether the investigation had been conducted and completed fairly, competently, and independently…. It concerns me whenever the Chief Executive comments on pending criminal investigations, something we see a lot today, which is why it concerned me when President Obama did it.

Mr. Gowdy. Well, it concerns me too, Director Comey. I’m also concerned that people treat similarly situated people the same. And did you make a memo after President Obama said she made a mistake and lacked the requisite criminal intent?

Mr. Comey. He said that on FOX News.

Mr. Gowdy. Right.

Mr. Comey. I did not make a memo about the FOX News broadcast.

BOOM!

The second instance occurred when Jim Jordan made much about the fact that James Baker, then General Counsel of the FBI, had testified earlier that it was a unique circumstance that anyone would approach him directly with evidence of someone’s wrongdoing that the discloser claimed would warrant an FBI investigation. What Jordan did not do was acknowledge that Baker had in fact returned alter to clarify that he did remember another case, a completely different matter, in which precisely that had occurred. It was left to the Democrats (Ms.  Sachsman Grooms in this case, she being Deputy Staff Director for Rep. Elijah Cummings of MD) to ask what amounted to redirect questions to fully develop the record that the Republicans were trying to create with partial information from a prior hearing.

Overall, despite all the sturm und drang from the Republicans, it was the same old same old. This is not part of an investigation designed to get at the truth about some threat to the country. It is an entirely partisan attempt to buttress the President against the ugly truth that he tried to obstruct justice by directly asking the Director of the FBI to drop a criminal investigation involving the National Security Advisor that Trump had appointed. The hearing will resume on December 17.

Trey Gowdy, soon to retire from the House, has little time left to restore himself to the good graces of the President who tolerance for independent thought is below zero. Read the history of Trump-Gowdy here: “Trump allies gang up on Gowdy,” https://politi.co/2Lgl1SZ  It’s pretty amusing. We can expect more “fireworks” from the Republicans in the next round with Comey who must be getting pretty tired of answering the same stupid questions over and over. But that’s what the President’s sycophants do. They have nothing else.

Racism at Ground Level

My wife and I emerged from a Broadway show into a cold downpour. The weather folks had predicted it and this time they were right. We had coats and umbrellas, of course, but the wind was strong and puddles were everywhere among the thousands of people on the street in Times Square, many of them without any apparent protection against either the cold or the rain. Tourists? New Yorkers who simply won’t yield to reality? No way to know and we really didn’t care.

Our first plan was to go to the closest subway station and take the train to Columbus Circle, from which it is just over a long block walk to our apartment. As fate would have it, both of the nearby stations were locked shut, due, we later learned, to “track improvements.”

Nothing for it but to walk the 10 or so blocks to our building and we set out. But just two blocks later, a taxi with top light on pulled up to the stoplight right in front of us. The diminutive driver signaled us into the cab and away we went. Sort of. Traffic was, of course, in total gridlock with a lot of angry horn honking and jockeying for position among the yellow cabs and the other cars that, for whatever unimaginable reason, had chosen to drive into the Times Square area that evening. This is to be expected. In every rainstorm since the automobile arrived in New York, there has been gridlock, horn honking and jockeying for position. Everyone knows it’s going to happen.

We slowly made our way across town toward 8th Avenue which would take us directly to Columbus Circle. Then, while still on West 51st Street our driver and the driver of a larger van-style car came side by side of each other. Looks were exchanged and then our driver lowered his window and began shouting at the other driver who returned the favor with his middle finger. Our driver said something about how the other guy should learn to drive “like a gentleman, you Pakistani m*****f***r!” Fortunately, that was the end of the exchange. I suspect that if it had not been raining so hard, these two men might have faced off in the street, while their passengers were ignored in favor of settling the racial score that had erupted between them. I don’t know if the other driver was working a ride-hailing service like Uber or was just out in the evening for other reasons. I have seen serious words exchanged by NY cabbies with Uber drivers before, but never in these circumstances. In this case it was hard to understand how our driver could tell anything about the other one through the downpour but he was clear enough about what he thought.

Had it not been raining, we would have left the cab with the fare unpaid. But it was and we didn’t. The drive, however, got only a nominal tip, for picking us up in the first place. This is not the experience anyone should have in a public conveyance. I well understand some of the bad blood between the taxis and the ride-hailing services, but even today many of the New York cabs are neither clean nor comfortable and the cabbies often seem to pride themselves on being surly. This episode was a sad reminder of the hostilities and tensions that stain our world.

Occam’s Razor – Trump Explained

The thinking segment of the American population, myself included, continues to wonder, often involuntarily, what forces could produce a person as unworthy as Donald Trump and then elect him to the most powerful political leadership position on earth. With each passing day, the conundrum grows as his conduct becomes even more horrific and dishonest than the day before than the day before ….

The principle of Occam’s Razor says, in its simplest form, that of two alternative explanations for something, it is usually the simpler one that is correct. More accurately, it is Ockham’s razor, named after a philosopher whose adulthood was spent in the 14th Century. The concept has other names, such as the law of economy.

In any case, if you apply that principle, Donald Trump is easy to understand.

Trump is a rich, over-privileged man who has always had his way by bullying, threatening and lying, using his wealth (handed to him by Daddy & later ill-gotten) to file lawsuits, abuse the bankruptcy laws to thwart paying off creditors and generally demanding and getting whatever he wanted. He is accustomed to being catered to by employees desperate to keep their jobs even at the expense of their dignity and by women seeking the “benefits” of being around a rich guy who lavished them with gifts in return from whatever they were willing to provide, including, most recently, their silence so that his campaign to be president would not face the inconvenience of revealed extramarital affairs.

Now, most people in Trump’s shoes conduct their perfidy in private, because obscurity serves to protect them from exposure for the type of people they really are. The recent spate of disclosures in the #metoo movement show how that has worked in the past. Hopefully, no more. But Trump has never shied away from public display of his crassness, witness his gold apartment in New York, or making excuses for his numerous business failures. He simply lies about them, denies everything and moves on to the next misadventure funded by his money and other people’s money who were foolish enough to ignore the evidence of his incompetence.

Trump is the perfect example, I suggest, of the Occam’s razor principle, which is exemplified perfectly in a quotation attributed to Coco Chanel: “There are people who have money and people who are rich.” Trump is the former.

In the normal course of human events, it is rare to come across someone who is openly a serial liar, racist, homophobe, nativist and the more we see of Trump, the more people wonder: how can this be true, that one person could so publicly display his duplicity, lack of morality, aversion to kindness hostility toward people less fortunate than himself and on and on. People seem to believe there is more to the man; there simply must be. No one can be this shallow and empty a soul and still have friends and still be respected by people who, superficially at least, are themselves respectable.

I suggest again that the search for a complex solution to these questions is hopeless and pointless. Trump is exactly what he appears to be and there is zero chance that he will change. The life forces that produced this person are not likely to suddenly produce a revelation in which Trump will come to understand how horrible a person he is. He will simply deny everything and carry on as before. If imprisoned ultimately for his crimes against the country and against humanity, he will be led away in chains proclaiming that the American system of justice was rigged against him, that he is in fact the greatest victim of all time. Look at me! Look at me!

Much has been made of Trump’s appetite for cheap hamburgers and of his apparent inability to spell or use complete English sentences in his speech. Again, this is finding complexity when a simpler and more obvious explanation exists. Trump’s malapropisms and misspelled/misused words in his tweet tantrums are, I suggest, deliberate acts to draw attention to him and away from both his “policies” and his treasonous guilt. The more Trump gets people guffawing over his style mistakes, the less they will focus on his misconduct and incompetence.

Granted, this strategy is only partially successful. Trump’s substantive failings get plenty of attention in the Twitterverse and in the political media, but that attention is a fraction of what it might be if he were not, metaphorically, dressed in a clown suit, squeezing his nose while making honking sounds and all the other distractions on which he trades.

In the end, it’s not going to work. Robert Mueller’s investigation seems itself to be an example of Occam’s razor at work. Mueller’s team is sifting through mountains of evidence to get at simple truths that state, yes, he is guilty. Stated metaphorically, when there is this much smoke, one of two explanations is true: there is fire or there is not. Bet on “not” at your peril and keep your day job.

Real News Roundup of Important Stories – No.1

The volume of astonishing stories coming out of, mainly, Washington DC is so large that it is impossible to keep up with thoughtful posts about each of them. This is frustrating because, of course, I have a lot of opinions to share, which is a main reason I write this blog at all.

I have therefore decided to publish periodic roundups of the most compelling stories in summary form. I have a large file of old stories and will just go through them in reverse order, newest first and so on. Of course, that symmetry will shortly and repeatedly be broken by the avalanche of new extraordinary tales. The items to be covered in this series are usually ones that don’t require a lot of comment or analysis.

First up, the incumbent Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Mississippi has just “joked” that it would be a good idea to make it harder for liberal college students in Mississippi to vote. https://wapo.st/2BaULYa This har-har knee-slapper follows on the heels of her remark a few days ago that if the host of her political event invited her to a public hanging, she’d be in the front row. Lady just doesn’t know when to keep her racist mouth shut. Har-har.

Meanwhile, Betsy DeVos, the know-nothing Secretary of Education has nothing better to do regarding the national education system than worry about the rights of young college men accused of sexual assault. According to reports, her new plan would narrow the definition of sexual harassment and mandate investigations of sexual assault only if the conduct happened on campus or other institutional sites and was reported to campus officials. The accused’s representative would be allowed to cross-examine the accuser. According to USAToday https://bit.ly/2OMsXwX , the new rules would create three categories of potentially actionable harassment. The new one is:

Unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the school’s education program or activity.

In addition, quid pro quo harassment, such as a school employee conditioning an educational benefit on a person’s sexual conduct and outright sexual assault. I am waiting for someone to define “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive.” Maybe it’s in the proposed rule somewhere. Among the “supportive measures” available are “academic course adjustments, counseling, no-contact orders, dorm room reassignment … and class schedule changes for either the accused or the accuser.” If so, this means that the victim of sexual harassment could be forced to take those steps to avoid further contact with the, in this case presumed guilty, harasser. Curious way to treat a victim of sexual harassment. Maybe more about this another day.

About a week ago, white nationalists held a “rally” outside Ward, Arkansas. Photographs of the handiwork of these upstanding “Americans” may be seen here if you have the stomach for it – you could easily confuse these with photos from Nazi Germany but these are homegrown boys: https://reut.rs/2K1KGzG Nothing to add here. The photos say it all. Except that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are fairly chargeable with inviting these things to publicly assert themselves.

In other developments stemming from the Republican Party’s devotion to the United States, our country joined with Russia, China and North Korea in refusing to sign on to a cybersecurity agreement created at the Paris Peace Forum last week. https://bit.ly/2qPfIC3 The pact was signed by more than 50 countries, 150 technology companies (including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, IBM, and HP) and 90 charitable and university parties.

According to Shareblue Media [https://bit.ly/2qPfIC3],

The cybersecurity pact — which calls for countries to work together to promote human rights on the internet, thwart malicious activities such as theft of intellectual property and trade secrets, and develop better methods to prevent foreign election interference — was supported by most modern democratic nations including Japan, Canada, and the countries of the European Union. [emphasis added]

According to the original source, The American Independent,

With the Trump administration continuing to make inexplicable decisions that benefit Russia with no apparent gains for the U.S., it’s not hard to see why so many people believe that Putin has a hold on Trump.

Unfortunately for the American people, that also means Putin has a hold on Trump’s decision-making — and despite what Trump may claim, there’s nothing “America First” about America retreating.

Last, for today, is this beauty, too good to pass up. As reported by Newsweek [https://bit.ly/2TgPOUP], Leavenworth County (Kansas) commissioner Louis Klemp “is facing calls to apologize after telling a black woman that he is part of the “master race” during a routine public planning meeting.” This is not made up. The cited report had the video that includes this statement:

“I don’t want you to feel like I’m picking on you. Because we are part of the master race,” he said in the meeting. “You know you have a gap in your teeth we’re the master race, don’t ever forget that.”

The video has been replaced but you can see it at https://bit.ly/2K8SmQA Putting aside that someone would actually say this, the amazing thing to me is that there are merely calls for him to apologize. Nothing in the article indicates that a demand has been made for his resignation. He, of course, now claims he was just joking. Har-har.

Three Things to Know About the Acting Attorney General

By now, everyone awake knows that Trump fired Jeff Sessions. Standing alone, no loss in my opinion. I have expressed my views of Sessions in earlier posts in this blog.

But there is the major issue of how this relates to Trump’s determination to abort the Mueller investigation. If successful at doing that, Trump might well immunize himself from the laws of the United States and, in effect, become the dictator he wants to be. That catastrophic constitutional crisis-in-the-making will play out however it plays out. It is far from clear that Trump’s ploy to replace Sessions with Matt Whitaker is going to work because the constitutionality of Whitaker’s status as Acting AG has been challenged by legal authorities on all sides of the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, there is more to the Whittaker Walt story. Sorry, I got confused with the movie, The Russians Are Coming, in which Carl Reiner plays Walt Whittaker whose name is a challenge to the Russian submarine captain whose sub has gone aground on a Martha’s Vineyard-like island. It’s Matt Whitaker we’re concerned with here. Though I do recommend everyone rent The Russians Are Coming. It’s very funny and we could all use a laugh right now.

Back to Matt Whitaker. Here are the three things:

  1. He believes that good judges should administer “biblical justice” (New Testament only) ahead of the justice prescribed by the statutes enacted by the government; I know that sounds batsh*t crazy but here is the evidence: https://wapo.st/2PLGiKr
  2. Whitaker, who was Chief of Staff to Jeff Sessions before Trump axed Sessions and made Whitaker “acting,” believes that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided: https://wapo.st/2JRQsUh For those not initiated into the secret cult of law and lawyers, Marbury was decided in 1803 in an opinion written by one of the imminent jurists in American legal history, John Marshall. Here is a nice summary of the case:

“Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they were not valid until their commissions were delivered by Secretary of State James Madison.

William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions….

The Court [unanimously] found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.

Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.

In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.”

Marbury v. Madison, Oyez, 10 Nov. 2018, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137.

  1. Whitaker also believes that states can overrule federal law. https://cnn.it/2FgIFRs

That position, which harkens back to the attitude of Southern states before the Civil War, is in direct conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that, I believe, Whitaker has sworn to uphold. Again, for the uninitiated, here is the pertinent part of the Supremacy Clause:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

So, this Matt Whitaker is the man Trump picked to be Acting Attorney General of the United States.

And, if that weren’t enough, when confronted with questions about the legitimacy of the appointment, Trump claimed not to know Whitaker and that he had acted on the basis of what other (unnamed) people had said about him. The media, of course, took a deep breath and immediately found the audio tape in which Trump had declared he did know Whitaker.

You just couldn’t make this stuff up. Trump has demonstrated once again that he, and the people supporting him in the White House, are corrupt, bumbling, incompetent, dishonest and, dare I say it, just “terrible people.” That was Trump’s characterization of the media people who dared to press him for answers about all this as he had one foot on the plane to fly to Paris where he promptly humiliated himself and the United States, again.

The Republicans in Congress will almost certainly continue to play the Kids Gallery to Trump’s version of Clarabell the Clown from the Howdy Doody Show. https://bit.ly/2qECe0r For those too young to know (Howdy aired from 1947 to 1960), Clarabell did not speak. He had a squeeze- horn on his belt and used exaggerated gestures to communicate with Buffalo Bob and the Kids Gallery. Maybe that’s a partial solution to Trump: let’s get him a belt-mounted squeeze-horn and a gag. General Kelly can continue to play Buffalo Bob.

Media Should Stop Playing Wag the Dog

The battle continues to rage on Twitter and elsewhere about whether CNN report Jim Acosta “put his hands” on a White House intern during a Trump press conference conflict over whether Acosta could ask a third question Trump didn’t want to hear. I have an opinion about what happened: Acosta tried to hog the questioning, a mistake but understandable in the circumstances; the intern was trying to do what she thought, correctly, the President wanted her to do, which was prevent Acosta from continuing to speak by taking the microphone out of his hands. Acosta resisted what, to me, looked like aggressive, even assaultive behavior by the intern. She should have stepped back at the first sign of resistance, but didn’t. Instead, she reached across Acosta and tried to snatch the microphone from his grip. He resisted, bringing the wrist of his hand, which was pointing at that moment, across the intern’s arm. Gently, I thought. She turned back to Trump with a “what do I do now” look on her face. Game over.

Well, not quite. The White House revoked Acosta’s press credentials claiming he had “put his hands” on the intern, a demonstrably false (are you surprised?) assertion. He did no such thing and the claim otherwise is a bald-faced lie. Putting aside the screaming irony of the idea that Donald Trump gives a good damn about what happens to a young female who works for the White House, the White House is now clutching its pearls and acting all offended on behalf of womankind.

In fact, they went so far as to release what appears to be a doctored video of the incident, altered to make it appear that Acosta was more aggressive than he actually was. I don’t know if the video was changed by the White House or by the source on the far far far right wing of the propaganda machine that, curiously, provided the tape used to the White House. The White House couldn’t get its own video? Really?

But here’s the thing. The WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders outright lied when she said that Acosta put his hands on the intern. He did not and even the doctored, if it was, video of the incident shows that clearly. Sanders, like all Trump’s Press Secretaries before her, has zero credibility, just like her pathetic excuse for a president.

So, what about it then? Here’s what I think.

Acosta and the rest of the WH press corps needs to learn how to ask questions. Acosta challenged Trump over whether the word “invasion” accurately describes the “caravan” of immigrants walking through Mexico toward the US border. This gave Trump the easy counter move of saying “we have a difference of opinion” and dismissing him. Acosta set himself up for that response. I have seen many other press people asking similar questions.

Instead, Acosta’s question should have been: “Mr. President, what supportable facts do you have to show that the immigrant caravan members are armed and intend to force their way into the United States?”  Or, “Mr. President, what investigation has been conducted to determine whether the caravan intends to crash the U.S. border or instead intends to seek asylum here as permitted under U.S. law?”

Trump likely will still lie but at least the “conversation” will be about facts and not about whether a group of people represents an “invasion” or something else.

Since Trump’s most ardent supporters are immune to new information and believe anything and everything Trump says, the change in approach won’t matter much to them. The rest of the country, however, would benefit by refocusing the questioning of the President on facts that can be verified, or not. Trump’s continuing strategy of diverting attention from his real problems, like the Mueller investigation, is a classic example of “wag the dog.” The press owes it to the country to learn how to ask questions that deflate rather than feed that game.

Just my opinion.