Tag Archives: Sanders

Bloomberg – Where from Here?

8 Replies

Disclosure: I have watched very little of the Democratic shouting matches called “debates” by the media. I tried early on; I really did. It was too much. Watching the mob of aspirants to the highest office in the land yell at each other like school yard children was too much to bear. Now the crowd has thinned but the yelling continues.

I did watch for a while last night though, mainly to see how Michael Bloomberg fared in the face of entirely predictable attacks from the others. It was not pretty to watch. I was shocked, which is not easy, to see Bloomberg so unprepared to address with sharp, brief responses the foreseeable assaults related to stop-and-frisk, workplace and personal hostility toward women and all the rest.

I suspect that in what counts for “normal life” for a billionaire Bloomberg is never spoken too as he was during last night’s free-for-all. He seemed both surprised and unprepared. His reactions were weak and his substantive responses were astonishingly poor in light of the circumstances. He tried to suggest that the women who signed NDAs would not want to be freed to tell their stories and looked paralyzed when Elizabeth Warren demanded to know how many there were. He tried to suggest that the whole fuss was some kind of reaction to bad jokes on his part. Ugh.

My guess is that Bloomberg’s campaign is finished. I hope so. He should save all that money and prepare to support the eventual nominee in the forthcoming battle of titans with Donald Trump. If Bloomberg wants to be remembered well, he has the best chance by being the financial angel behind a winning Democratic campaign against the gangster president that now inhabits the people’s house in Washington. His staff has shown some chops in creating aggressive political ads and could be very helpful to the nominee who will have his/her hands full with the heavily financed, foreign-influenced/supported Trump machine. Bloomberg’s financial and other support for the Democratic nominee would be the highest and best use of his considerable resources.

As for the his/her question, it seems clear to me that Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified among the remaining Democratic contenders. Having said that, I am mystified almost to despair at why Ms. Warren feels it is necessary to raise her voice. I understand, of course, that being on a stage with Bernie Sanders, who apparently can’t speak without gesticulating wildly and shouting, is challenging. The format also does little to produce the kind of orderly disputation that I would like to see from those seeking the peoples’ approval to lead the nation. But Pete Buttigieg, who someday (but as a small-town mayor not now) will be ready for the presidency, managed to remain calm and steady at least while I was watching.

To be clear, I’m not talking about the obnoxious “she’s too angry to be likable” accusations directed at Warren. My concern is not about “women being too aggressive.”  I am asking for someone with her knowledge and experience to state, in an orderly but forceful and compelling way, why her intellect, ideas and experience make her more qualified to be president than the other aspirants and more likely to be able to defeat Trump. The best way to get past all that garbage about women being too pushy is to stop behaving like Bernie Sanders and become the steady intelligent rock we all, I hope, are looking for. Someone who can eat Trump’s lunch in debate, not by out shouting or name-calling him but by showing through reason why he must be removed from the presidency.

There is no doubt, in my view, that many of Warren’s substantive ideas are ahead of their time and will face resistance even in a majority-Democratic Congress. Warren is, I am convinced, far better able to deal with that reality than the other candidates with the exception of Joe Biden.

So, what about Biden? He has the greatest relevant experience. He was a loyal VP to Barack Obama. He is a known quantity to our allies abroad and, as far as can be known, is generally respected by them. He has “presidential temperament.” Joe Biden has a lot to commend him. To be sure, Biden has some flaws. They all do, but none of his flaws even registers against the flaws of the sitting president. I suspect that the worst substantive objection to Biden is his age, but that is a charge against multiple contenders and can be resolved with a good choice for VP. There are numerous respectable alternatives that would lend strength to the Democratic ticket.

So why not Joe? Perhaps the most compelling substantive reason is the argument that it’s time for new blood, bold ideas even if too advanced for immediate adoption and so on. I believe, as I have for decades, that for the most part the success or failure of a president turns on the people with whom he surrounds himself. The president is not the source of all the good ideas nor is he effectively able to control the execution of every project his/her administration attempts. I am assuming, of course, that, unlike Donald Trump, the president understands the responsibilities of the office, pays attention to the advice of his experts, listens carefully and so on. You know, the normal attributes of a fully functioning adult.

And, in the end, it is the president who decides. That is why it is so important to elect a leader who will listen, study, respect truth as best it can be determined, and act with full and unending devotion to the public, as opposed to one’s private, good. The presidency carries the gravest burdens, the heaviest responsibilities to make the most difficult choices a human being ever must make. That is why we need a leader with the attributes of maturity, selflessness and honesty that underpin the best chance of getting things right.

It is, I suggest, time to stop screaming and start speaking. Stop tearing each other down and start addressing the real problem that one of our two political parties has willingly made itself hostage to a right-wing cabal of dishonesty and incompetence. In my view, the red MAGA hats are the functional equivalent of the swastika. If re-elected, Donald Trump will conclude he is, in effect, a monarch and democracy in America will be dead. That is the challenge we face, so we had best choose wisely. And then, it all comes down to getting out the vote. Everyone who stays home on Election Day because their favorite Democrat wasn’t nominated will be, in effect, voting for Donald Trump’s re-election. If you know such people, it is time now to start explaining this to them. There are only two sides to this fight. Everyone must choose. It is time

Mueller Report Part II – Trump Guilty of Obstruction of Justice – D

Leave a reply

D. Why Weren’t Trump’s Enablers Indicted?

One of the great lingering mysteries about Mueller’s treatment of the obstruction issues is why he did not secure indictments of Trump’s enablers when the evidence clearly indicated their involvement in promoting the obstruction that Trump was executing. One prominent example of this is K.T. McFarland, who seemed to act as a go-between for Trump to direct Michael Flynn. It is implausible, I suggest, to believe that McFarland would not have revealed discussions with Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak in meeting with Trump one hour after talking to Flynn about those discussions. II MR-25. As referenced earlier in these posts, Flynn had multiple memory failure about the information he may have discussed with other administration officials and Trump himself. The Russian response to the US sanctions was apparently a matter of considerable importance to Trump and his administration. Given Flynn’s admission of lying about his contacts with Kislyak, it is very hard to conclude that these memory failures were legitimate and that neither Trump nor his principal enablers were kept in the dark.

Beyond all that, McFarland followed Flynn’s directions to tell the Washington Post that no discussion of sanctions had occurred with Kislyak. Mueller specifically says, “McFarland made the call as Flynn had requested although she knew she was providing false information….” II MR-29. No charges were brought against McFarland for her role in this ruse. Why not?

Putting aside the further implausibility of Trump, after a lifetime of litigation and political commentary, denying that he understood the law, one thing is clear: as of January 26, 2017, Don McGahn, White House counsel, explained both 18 USC 1001 (crime to lie to federal government) and the Logan Act (crime for citizen of U.S. to communicate with a foreign government with intent to influence the foreign government in relation to disputes with the U.S. or to defeat the measures of the U.S.). II MR-31.

Rather than extending this already-long narrative about the multiple situations in which credible evidence shows Trump committed obstruction of justice and possibly other crimes, I want to raise some questions about the obstruction investigation that cry out for answers but are not explained in the Mueller Report.

One of the big ones relates to the visits by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to the White House to explain that the Justice Department had evidence indicating Gen. Flynn had been compromised by his lies about interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. When Yates returned to the White House on January 27, 2017, at the request of White House counsel Don McGahn, he asked to see the information DOJ had on Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak. This information was provided! II MR-33, n. 166. It was reviewed by John Eisenberg, legal advisor to the National Security Council. Why did the Acting AG think it was a good idea to provide the evidence to the White House in light of Trump’s history of denying Russian influence in the election and lying about events related to it? Why would Yates think that the White House would act against Flynn?

As it turned out, that was the same day that Trump invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House, disregarding not for the first nor last time, the advice of White House counsel to avoid the appearance of political interference with law enforcement. II MR-33. That, of course, was the dinner at which Trump demanded “loyalty” from Comey. II MR-34. Both Press Secretary Sanders and counsel McGahn adopted Trump’s denials of the “loyalty” demand, thereby making themselves collaborators in what Mueller concluded, based on all the evidence, was a series of Trump lies about what transpired. II MR-35, 36 and 35, n. 183. Yet, neither Sanders nor McGahn was indicted. Why not?

In the end, Trump reluctantly fired Flynn while assuring him that he would be taken care of. II MR-38. The very next day Trump cleared a meeting room of witnesses and asked Comey to let Flynn go. II MR-40. Astoundingly, Jared Kushner, one of those dismissed, claimed he could not remember that Trump asked Comey to remain behind for a private meeting.  II MR-40, n. 233. Trump continued to assure Flynn of his kind regard for him into late March or early April. II MR-44.

Trump continued to lie about the Flynn situation, going so far as to claim he did not recall the “loyalty” meeting at all. II MR-44. Trump insiders Priebus & McGahn minced words regarding Trump’s attempts to call off Comey from the Flynn investigation. II MR-44, n. 270.

Breaking News: Massive Cave-in at White House

Leave a reply

Here’s how it went down.

When Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, first learned that Trump was caving on the government shutdown and the fight over “wall funding,” he misunderstood and thought that one of Melania’s escape tunnels had collapsed. He soon learned the truth. Trump was backing down! This was mightily puzzling to McConnell who, despite leading one-half of the co-equal branch of government known as Congress, was in reality a vassal to his liege lord Trump and was being left out in the cold. What could possibly be going on?

McConnell ran to the White House to get instructions from the master negotiator himself, Donald J. Trump. Trump was, however, confused by his fight with the Democrats over funding for his promised “border wall” (or, as he now says, “whatever you want to call it”). Trump had repeatedly rejected border security funding proposals that did not include the “wall,” preferring to shut down the U.S. government and thereby show how tough a negotiator he is. Trump’s negotiating principle was: “give me what I want or I will hurt you … or someone else you care about.” You know, like a mob boss. Trump apparently believed that it would be effective to simply continue demanding the one thing the Democrats, in solid control of the House of Representatives, weren’t prepared to give, complaining all the while that the Democrats wouldn’t negotiate. McConnell was at a loss how to help his lord and master out of this jam.

Many theories exist about how to negotiate effectively. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of books have been devoted to the subject. The one tactic that virtually all negotiation authorities seem to agree on is that taking an extreme position at the outset and refusing to budge in order to get the other side to yield by simply repeating the position is the least effective approach to making a deal. Credible books on the subject devote considerable space to explaining how to deal with the “my way or the highway” negotiators because, despite their dismal record of results, there still are many “negotiators” who try the tactic.

Trump is a great example of this. By dint of his past position atop a real estate empire financed with other people’s money, he is accustomed to demanding and getting others to yield, lest he walk away or file a lawsuit (a favorite tactic). Surrounded by people eager to please, it appears no one told him that trying to negotiate by taking hostages and threatening to hurt them and continue hurting them is unlikely to lead to a favorable outcome. Even if someone told him, it’s unlikely he would have listened. Trump has made it clear many times that he already knows everything he needs to know about everything.

So, Trump shut down the government, loudly proclaiming that the shutdown was “on him” and no one else. Somehow, he thought that forcing hundreds of thousands of federal workers to either work for no pay (we’ll get back to you sometime later with your money) or stop working altogether without pay was going to force the Democrats led by the newly ensconced Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to yield and give him the wall money he wanted. Maybe he thought, “she’s a woman and cares about people, so she’ll crack. I don’t care about anyone but myself so I can outlast her.” Maybe he just thought she was a weak person, since he thinks most people, especially women, are weak compared to him. Maybe he just had too many hamberders and couldn’t think straight. We’ll never really know.

What we do know is that the hostages in Trump’s power play tended to blame him and the Republicans for their inability to do their jobs and pay their bills. Members of Trump’s cabinet, in their usual fashion, tried to prove their loyalty and come to his aid, by pointing out that federal workers without incomes could simply borrow from a bank or credit union. Another characterized the work of federal workers forced to labor without pay until an unknown future time as “volunteering.” The wife of one of Trump’s wealthy sons pointed out that while, yes, there was a “bit of pain” involved in being without an income, it was for a greater cause and thus everyone should be happy to sacrifice. And on and on and on. They gave new meaning to the phrase “tone deaf.” Future historians trying to explain this time will be stymied by the utter absurdity of the theater created by these buffoons, all appointed by or otherwise owned by Trump.

As the casualties piled up, and the airplanes began to stack up as air traffic control faltered due to inadequate staffing, Trump finally caved. He accepted a short term funding and reopening of the government with negotiations then to begin regarding border security. The same deal he would have had back in December and on multiple occasions since then.

In classic Trump fashion, of course, the cave in was accompanied by a meandering blathering incoherent speech about border security and, finally, a repeat of the same old threat: “give me what I demand or I will declare a national emergency, shut down the government again and build the wall with money I will steal from other parts of the federal budget.” Indeed, in a tweet following his Rose Garden speech, Trump flatly denied he had made a concession at all. He reframed his collapse as a decision to help the

“millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!”

The “understanding” Trump refers to is only an illusion within his own mind, not something that involves third parties.

To remove any lingering doubts about that, the putative White House Press Secretary, who now has nothing to do but repeat Trump’s messages, tweeted:

In 21 days President @realDonaldTrump is moving forward building the wall with or without the Democrats. The only outstanding question is whether the Democrats want something or nothing. [emphasis added]

That must make sense to Sanders but for the life of me I don’t know what the hell she is saying. Someone I know well replied to her on Twitter with

Really? Trump caved to give Democrats another chance of yield to his demands? That’s your story?

So, apparently, if we’re to believe Trump this time, it’s still “my way or the highway” and this whole three-week suspension of the shutdown is only to help out the Democrats. Or the federal workers. Or somebody.

On that note, the “negotiations” will resume. Now, no one knows whether the courts will sustain a declaration of national emergency in these circumstances. Trump’s record in court is pretty bad, but this is largely uncharted territory. The data on border crossings do not appear to remotely support the idea that there is a national emergency but it remains to be seen whether the courts will simply defer to the “president’s authority” on this.

Of course, one must also wonder why, if Trump has the power to arbitrarily declare a national emergency, he would also have to shut down the government again. One may also wonder why, if he is so determined to build his wall, he doesn’t just use the powers he claims to already have and proceed to steal the money from some other budget item. But logic has never defined this presidency, so maybe that’s just a silly question. Or, just maybe, his legal advisors have warned him that he is on thin ice in claiming absolute power to build the wall on his own order. Again, we’ll likely never know what thought process, if any, actually underlies these twisted mental gymnastics. One thing we can reasonably be sure of – it’s not to help out the Democrats and it’s not about protecting federal workers, about whom Donald Trump gives not one … damn.

The other point to be made here was, I think, very well made in a Facebook post attributed to Dan Rather by the site, Truth Matters. Summarized, the argument is that to bring the issue of border security and the “wall” forward properly, Trump should have arranged for legislation to be introduced, after which hearings would be held, expert testimony collected and, ultimately, votes taken on the elements of a proper modern border security regime. In legislative terms, this would be called “regular order.” But, no, Trump thinks he is a dictator who can simply demand what he wants and everyone will yield as they did when he was in private life running his real estate companies.

The resistance led by Pelosi shows that at least one half of the Congress, under Democratic leadership, understands its proper constitutional role as balance against the executive. Trump thinks he’s going to win because he needs to satisfy his political base and he is blind to the reality that even some of that group of slavishly devoted followers were hurt by and disapprove of the government shutdown Trump directed and that he continues to threaten.

So, the negotiations will resume with Trump’s threat on the table: “do it my way or I will simply go around you.” This is not a formula for success and there is no reason for Democrats in the House to yield to this type of threat from the president. It is not in fact the Democrats who don’t want to negotiate – it is Trump who still insists “you will do it may way or else.”

I am not prescient and will not try to predict how this is going to come out, but it’s hard to be optimistic when one party takes the position of a 5-year old who won’t eat dinner unless he’s guaranteed two desserts.

When last seen, Mitch McConnell was seen standing in the cold in front of the White House holding a note addressed to the president. It read “My liege, what, oh what, do you want me to do now?”

Note: some of the above is satire but it’s impossible to know which part. It could all be true.

 

 

Media Should Stop Playing Wag the Dog

2 Replies

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.