Everyone on either side of the political aisle has an axe to grind with fmr. FBI Director James Comey, but the notion that he should have waited to write a book bout his experiences is ridiculous. When he was fired by President Trump, mainly because of the Russian investigation, he became a private citizen and was therefore free to write a book, make money, and do interviews. So anyone upset by that saying that he has a sense of duty to wait, get over yourself. He was unceremoniously relieved of his public duty so now, like every other private citizen, his duty is to himself and his family. If people are upset that he's made money from the book, well, welcome to the world.
With that, Mr. Comey is correct in his assessment that the House report on Russian election meddling is a political document, and as NBC's Kasie Hunt simply stated, Republicans have their own set of facts when it comes to the Russian investigation. The House Intelligence Committee has been indeed wrecked as Mr. Comey said, and as much as this column loathes Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) and his actions in heading up the committee, he's not the worst actor in all of this. The worst person in all of this has been the current Speaker of House, Paul Ryan (R-WI).
Mr. Ryan has fully enabled and sanctioned Mr. Nunes's shenanigans in terms of the Russia investigation. Mr. Ryan has fully proven himself a man of little integrity, which was further reinforced just this week when his firing of the House Chaplin became public. Political partisans didn't like what the Chaplin has to say in prayer so Ryan bowed to the pressure to be the first House Speaker to fire a Catholic priest from the post. And why? Because Father Patrick Conroy reminded House members that Jesus was a fighter and advocate for the poor? Jesus didn't teach the 'prosperity gospel,' despite what some House members would wrongfully tell you. Mr. Ryan's actions and non-leadership have been disgraceful, to say the least.
You don't always have to agree with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, but she accurately summed it up when she said that Mr. Ryan now feels that the House doesn't need a Chaplin anymore because Republicans have sold their soul to President Trump.
And speaking of the president and credibility, nothing Mr. Trump says in terms of the Russian investigation is to be believed. At his Friday night rally, Mr. Trump said that Vladimir Putin was now telling Russians embroiled in the Russia meddling to incriminate themselves because the U.S. president has been so tough on Russia. As Mr. Comey accurately assessed this morning, it gives little hope that the president is thinking clearly.
The Washington Examiner's Stephen Moore said that Mr. Comey has politicized the FBI, but like on most things political Mr. Moore is incorrect. The politicizing and diminishing of our institutions falls squarely on Mr. Trump's shoulders. Mr. Moore was also wrong today when he assessed the Russia investigation as a partisan 'witch hunt.' Now, had Mr. Comey made mistakes? Yes, a lot, which were driven by his own self-importance that clouded his judgement at times. However, Chuck Todd said that Mr. Comey prejudged the president, which isn't necessarily true because Mr. Comey during the election knew something that the public and the press didn't know, which was that his campaign manager and others were already under investigation for improper Russian contacts during the election.
Where we shouldn't prejudge the president is with regard to the historical events that occurred on the Korean Peninsula this week, with the small exception that Mr. Trump shouldn't take credit for 'everything.' More campaign-style hyperbole from our hyperbolic president. What we must understand going in is that denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is going to be a long process. Taking Kim Jung Un's word for it, just isn't going to cut it. However, the North Korean dictator sees the writing on the wall, in which he and the elite leaders in his country are now the ones also being squeezed financially, not only his people, which he has mercilessly oppressed. Political and economic pressure is now coming from Kim's biggest benefactor, China, so he has to make a move and his aspiration is to set himself up as a junior Xi - leader for life in a system he completely controls, but one that is slightly more open. Pressure has indeed come from Mr. Trump, but what does it say when the dictator of North Korea considers the President of the United States to not be a rational actor. Ouch.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Maureen Dowd, The New York Times; Edward Glaude, Princeton University; Stephen Moore, The Washington Examiner
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Sunday, April 15, 2018
4.15.18: Sinking In the Depths of Trumpian Seas
For the purposes of this week's column, it's expedient to cover the last major segment first, which was the interview with the Speaker of House, Paul Ryan (R-WI). In good faith, you can respect Mr. Ryan's desire to spend more time with his family, which played a major factor in his reasoning to not seek reelection. However, in equally large part, Mr. Ryan is jumping ship before his party sinks beneath the Trumpian sea. The Republican party's complicity with the president and his cabinet's many ethical violations, not to mention the seediness of the various allegations of the president's affairs along with the general daily chaos in the White House have left the prospects dim for Republicans controlling the House after the midterms. There is no way that Paul Ryan wants to be minority leader and neither does he want to have to defend this president another two years. The writing is on the wall.
And the tapes are in the drawer...
Though Michael Cohen fashions himself a Ray Donovan style fixer, he is a lawyer and more specifically Donald Trump's lawyer. For FBI agents to conduct surveillance leading up to this week's search of his office, home, and hotel room, the threshold needs to be very high with a high degree of certainty that Mr. Cohen may destroy potential evidence. Unbelievably, Mr. Cohen recorded many conversations and it's known that he's used those recordings as leverage on the president's behalf. If anyone knows which closet all of Mr. Trump's skeletons are located it would be Michael Cohen. No matter what filing Mr. Cohen's lawyer offers for an injunction, it will fail and now the District Attorney in the Southern District of New York and the FBI will know as well. Plausible deniability on the part of the president is thin, at best.
Not only will this collected evidence play a part in the more salacious stories of pay-outs to women for their silence, but could also play a part in the Russia investigation as well. As John Brennan said today in his interview with Chuck Todd, the revelation that Michael Cohen did in fact travel to Prague as confirmed by McClatchy news service, after Paul Manafort stepping aside as campaign chairmen, could be "explosive." Mr. Trump's lawyer, already known to make shady payments, may have met with a Russian contact in Prague, to pay 'cut-outs' for the Kremlin to meddle in the 2016 election. If proven, it's direct evidence that Mr. Trump and his campaign subverted American democracy with the help of a foreign government.
Let that sink in for a moment.
That opens up the possibility of the President of the United States being blackmailed by a foreign government, not just of any country but Russia and Vladimir Putin.
At a rally about a week and half ago, the president stated that the American military would be getting out of Syria and said that it should be left to others. When the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad heard that, he took it as a green light to commit another atrocious act in the form of using chemical weapons. Then on Monday, the FBI seized evidence from the president's personal lawyer. On Friday night, in cooperation with Britain and France, targeted airstrikes took out Assad's chemical weapon capabilities.
There was talk about a 'wag the dog' situation, in which the president was conducting a military operation to distract from all these domestic investigations. It would seem that way, but that's a degree of cynicism that this column cannot indulge in. Without a response, the use of chemical weapons would become normalized and that just cannot stand.
The New York Times Magazine's Mark Leibovich rightly said that the president doesn't get to define the red line when it comes to investigations of Russian meddling and potential illegal payments made by his fixer. However with regard to Syria, the president can and should draw this line. One would have to agree with Mr. Brennan that despite the many criticisms one could throw at this administration, it has acted in a measured, appropriate way in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Carol Lee, NBC News; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; Al Cardenas, Republican strategist
One more thing...
With regard to fmr. FBI Director James Comey's book, Chuck Todd asked the a key rhetorical question. What does it say about a president that the former FBI director would characterize him the way he did? It also needs to be said that the president calling him an 'untruthful slime ball' and the president's press secretary calling him a 'partisan hack' just shows the American people the quality of this administration, or the sore lack thereof. Both comments are contemptible.
And the tapes are in the drawer...
Though Michael Cohen fashions himself a Ray Donovan style fixer, he is a lawyer and more specifically Donald Trump's lawyer. For FBI agents to conduct surveillance leading up to this week's search of his office, home, and hotel room, the threshold needs to be very high with a high degree of certainty that Mr. Cohen may destroy potential evidence. Unbelievably, Mr. Cohen recorded many conversations and it's known that he's used those recordings as leverage on the president's behalf. If anyone knows which closet all of Mr. Trump's skeletons are located it would be Michael Cohen. No matter what filing Mr. Cohen's lawyer offers for an injunction, it will fail and now the District Attorney in the Southern District of New York and the FBI will know as well. Plausible deniability on the part of the president is thin, at best.
Not only will this collected evidence play a part in the more salacious stories of pay-outs to women for their silence, but could also play a part in the Russia investigation as well. As John Brennan said today in his interview with Chuck Todd, the revelation that Michael Cohen did in fact travel to Prague as confirmed by McClatchy news service, after Paul Manafort stepping aside as campaign chairmen, could be "explosive." Mr. Trump's lawyer, already known to make shady payments, may have met with a Russian contact in Prague, to pay 'cut-outs' for the Kremlin to meddle in the 2016 election. If proven, it's direct evidence that Mr. Trump and his campaign subverted American democracy with the help of a foreign government.
Let that sink in for a moment.
That opens up the possibility of the President of the United States being blackmailed by a foreign government, not just of any country but Russia and Vladimir Putin.
At a rally about a week and half ago, the president stated that the American military would be getting out of Syria and said that it should be left to others. When the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad heard that, he took it as a green light to commit another atrocious act in the form of using chemical weapons. Then on Monday, the FBI seized evidence from the president's personal lawyer. On Friday night, in cooperation with Britain and France, targeted airstrikes took out Assad's chemical weapon capabilities.
There was talk about a 'wag the dog' situation, in which the president was conducting a military operation to distract from all these domestic investigations. It would seem that way, but that's a degree of cynicism that this column cannot indulge in. Without a response, the use of chemical weapons would become normalized and that just cannot stand.
The New York Times Magazine's Mark Leibovich rightly said that the president doesn't get to define the red line when it comes to investigations of Russian meddling and potential illegal payments made by his fixer. However with regard to Syria, the president can and should draw this line. One would have to agree with Mr. Brennan that despite the many criticisms one could throw at this administration, it has acted in a measured, appropriate way in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Carol Lee, NBC News; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; Al Cardenas, Republican strategist
One more thing...
With regard to fmr. FBI Director James Comey's book, Chuck Todd asked the a key rhetorical question. What does it say about a president that the former FBI director would characterize him the way he did? It also needs to be said that the president calling him an 'untruthful slime ball' and the president's press secretary calling him a 'partisan hack' just shows the American people the quality of this administration, or the sore lack thereof. Both comments are contemptible.
Sunday, April 08, 2018
4.8.18: President Trump's Isolationism Isn't Nationalistic/ And a Word On Regulations
At the top of the program, Chuck Todd mentioned 'nationalistic themes' running through Mr. Trump's presidency, but are they nationalistic or really isolationist? Nationalistic is the belief that your country is superior to other countries, but that's not what we're seeing from the president.
Also, more Americans than just the president's base supporters do not necessarily disagree with the Administrations mends as much as the president's method and madness.Case in point is the deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border. As The New York Times Helene Cooper pointed out, Presidents Bush and Obama sent the National Guard there. However, Mr. Trump is bent on creating hysteria, xenophobia and fear to justify these actions. Until the wall is built, the 'military,' as Mr. Trump purposely phrases it as such, has to guard the border.
Even with the tariffs that the president is imposing, many agree that something needs to be done about China's unfair trade practices and their constant theft of American intellectual property. When Mr. Todd asked, Peter Navarro, the Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, about the president's tariff announcements and whether they were negotiating tactics or policy, the director said, "both," but in the meantime there's much economic uncertainty being created. Tariffs need to be carefully negotiated, not tweeted as a blanket statement and then later walk some back through exceptions - e.g., steel and aluminum. The president has to be willing to face the political repercussions of the hit American farmers are surely going to take when China implements tariffs in kind. When the president makes mad statements, others (namely China) will get mad back.
Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) was right when he said that not doing the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TTP) was a mistake. With that partnership the United States could have locked in a multi-national trade deal with countries right on China's doorstep, and that would have created more leverage for the U.S. to deal with China. Senator Rounds also went on to explain that the president said that it would be better to negotiate with each country one on one, but none of these deals have been put in place yet.
It's also worth noting the refreshing appeal the Senator made for the Administration to stop fighting with Mexico and Canada on trade - our two best partners.
With regard to Syria, the president who has famously said that he would never show his hand when it came to foreign policy said that we're pulling our troops out of Syria where they have provided instrumental assistance in liberating cities once occupied by ISIS. Now, in light of another reported chemical attack, tacitly supported by the Kremlin, the president is 'boxed in' and there's a lot of pressure to respond as the National Review's Rich Lowry explained. The last time there was a chemical attack, the administration responded with a highly publicized missile attack. Ms. Cooper reported that U.S. military leaders are formulating multiple strike possibilities. Yet, according to the president, we disengaging from Syria.
Pulling back from promoting and selling American products, ceding our foreign policy to Russia and Iran in the Middle East and building a wall to keep 'them' out aren't nationalistic, it's isolationist. Donald Trump is a great salesman, but he doesn't sell American strength and prosperity to the rest of the world, he only sells himself to Americans.
Mr. Lowry stated that the president is 'dug in' on his support for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite Mr. Pruitt's many ethics violations. However, what he also essentially said was that Mr. Pruitt should own these excesses and vow to correct them, but that won't happen.
Mr. Pruitt is a conservative hero and and giving him the boot is not the way to endear yourself to the conservative base. With that, what everyone pointed out today, Mr. Pruitt has carried out a great deal of Mr. Trump's agenda, more so than any other cabinet member.
Chuck Todd asked Senator Rounds, a Pruitt admirer, why one could not like his regulation rollbacks, but not his ethics violations, to which Mr. Rounds doubled up on the administrator's achievements. Scott Pruitt is the poster child for conservative zero-sum politics and as long as he's winning, it doesn't matter how much of the taxpayers' money he spends on himself. Just a check, I did a quick search of regulations that illustrate what Mr. Pruitt was has been accomplishing.
President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017 directing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and rescind or replace the 2016 Waters of the U.S. Rule (also known as the “Clean Water Rule”), and on June 27, 2017, EPA and the Corps released a proposal to rescind the rule.
On April 25, 2017, the Trump Administration halted, indefinitely, certain compliance deadlines in the 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (“ELG”) Rule, which set, for the first time, limits on toxic water pollution from coal-fired power plants.
On September 14 2017, the Pruitt EPA announced that it would be reconsidering its Coal Ash Disposal Rule, the first federal rule governing disposal of coal ash, the by-product created from burning coal. Coal ash (also called coal combustion residuals) contains toxic pollutants including arsenic, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium that can leach into groundwater, surface water, or air and threaten health and the environment without proper disposal controls.
On October 10, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a notice proposing a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which requires utilities to reduce carbon emissions from existing facilities by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, for rollback.
On April 2, 2018, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that his agency plans to eliminate new greenhouse gas reduction targets for cars and trucks that would double fuel efficiency by 2025.
I sourced these from the Environmental Integrity Project, which I'm sure someone, if not many people, will accuse of bias, but these are all documented by other sources or put into writing by the president himself, so you be the judge as to whether you think these regulations should have been reversed. In my humble opinion, these are all moves that set the country back, and in addition stifle ever-necessary energy innovation.
And finally, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Let's just say that with regard to Mr. Zuckerberg's appearance on Capitol Hill this week, Charles Cook, the Cook Political Report, summed it up best. If Mark Zuckerberg had appeared before Congress right away, it would have been bad, but now it's going to be horrific. "Roasted" was the term Rich Lowry used.
Mr. Zuckerberg's days of apologies and self-regulating half-measures are coming to a conclusion. It's just not going to work anymore that he's the individual who decides who gets your data and how much of it.
But here's the rub: When you have erudite old white men predominantly presiding over Congress who don't understand the back end of social media, regulation is going to be slow and ineffective. Conversely, this is why Mr. Wylie's insights are quite credible when he explains that it could be a lot more than 87 million people who have had their data shared with third parties.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, the National Review; Charlies Cook, the Cook Political Report
One more thing...
As a former teacher, I can safely say that teachers need to be paid more... much more. And states like Oklahoma that cut funding for their schools should be ashamed of themselves. Hard stop.
Also, more Americans than just the president's base supporters do not necessarily disagree with the Administrations mends as much as the president's method and madness.Case in point is the deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border. As The New York Times Helene Cooper pointed out, Presidents Bush and Obama sent the National Guard there. However, Mr. Trump is bent on creating hysteria, xenophobia and fear to justify these actions. Until the wall is built, the 'military,' as Mr. Trump purposely phrases it as such, has to guard the border.
Even with the tariffs that the president is imposing, many agree that something needs to be done about China's unfair trade practices and their constant theft of American intellectual property. When Mr. Todd asked, Peter Navarro, the Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, about the president's tariff announcements and whether they were negotiating tactics or policy, the director said, "both," but in the meantime there's much economic uncertainty being created. Tariffs need to be carefully negotiated, not tweeted as a blanket statement and then later walk some back through exceptions - e.g., steel and aluminum. The president has to be willing to face the political repercussions of the hit American farmers are surely going to take when China implements tariffs in kind. When the president makes mad statements, others (namely China) will get mad back.
Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) was right when he said that not doing the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TTP) was a mistake. With that partnership the United States could have locked in a multi-national trade deal with countries right on China's doorstep, and that would have created more leverage for the U.S. to deal with China. Senator Rounds also went on to explain that the president said that it would be better to negotiate with each country one on one, but none of these deals have been put in place yet.
It's also worth noting the refreshing appeal the Senator made for the Administration to stop fighting with Mexico and Canada on trade - our two best partners.
With regard to Syria, the president who has famously said that he would never show his hand when it came to foreign policy said that we're pulling our troops out of Syria where they have provided instrumental assistance in liberating cities once occupied by ISIS. Now, in light of another reported chemical attack, tacitly supported by the Kremlin, the president is 'boxed in' and there's a lot of pressure to respond as the National Review's Rich Lowry explained. The last time there was a chemical attack, the administration responded with a highly publicized missile attack. Ms. Cooper reported that U.S. military leaders are formulating multiple strike possibilities. Yet, according to the president, we disengaging from Syria.
Pulling back from promoting and selling American products, ceding our foreign policy to Russia and Iran in the Middle East and building a wall to keep 'them' out aren't nationalistic, it's isolationist. Donald Trump is a great salesman, but he doesn't sell American strength and prosperity to the rest of the world, he only sells himself to Americans.
***
Mr. Lowry stated that the president is 'dug in' on his support for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, despite Mr. Pruitt's many ethics violations. However, what he also essentially said was that Mr. Pruitt should own these excesses and vow to correct them, but that won't happen.
Mr. Pruitt is a conservative hero and and giving him the boot is not the way to endear yourself to the conservative base. With that, what everyone pointed out today, Mr. Pruitt has carried out a great deal of Mr. Trump's agenda, more so than any other cabinet member.
Chuck Todd asked Senator Rounds, a Pruitt admirer, why one could not like his regulation rollbacks, but not his ethics violations, to which Mr. Rounds doubled up on the administrator's achievements. Scott Pruitt is the poster child for conservative zero-sum politics and as long as he's winning, it doesn't matter how much of the taxpayers' money he spends on himself. Just a check, I did a quick search of regulations that illustrate what Mr. Pruitt was has been accomplishing.
President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017 directing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and rescind or replace the 2016 Waters of the U.S. Rule (also known as the “Clean Water Rule”), and on June 27, 2017, EPA and the Corps released a proposal to rescind the rule.
On April 25, 2017, the Trump Administration halted, indefinitely, certain compliance deadlines in the 2015 Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines (“ELG”) Rule, which set, for the first time, limits on toxic water pollution from coal-fired power plants.
On September 14 2017, the Pruitt EPA announced that it would be reconsidering its Coal Ash Disposal Rule, the first federal rule governing disposal of coal ash, the by-product created from burning coal. Coal ash (also called coal combustion residuals) contains toxic pollutants including arsenic, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium that can leach into groundwater, surface water, or air and threaten health and the environment without proper disposal controls.
On October 10, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a notice proposing a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which requires utilities to reduce carbon emissions from existing facilities by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, for rollback.
On April 2, 2018, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that his agency plans to eliminate new greenhouse gas reduction targets for cars and trucks that would double fuel efficiency by 2025.
I sourced these from the Environmental Integrity Project, which I'm sure someone, if not many people, will accuse of bias, but these are all documented by other sources or put into writing by the president himself, so you be the judge as to whether you think these regulations should have been reversed. In my humble opinion, these are all moves that set the country back, and in addition stifle ever-necessary energy innovation.
And finally, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Let's just say that with regard to Mr. Zuckerberg's appearance on Capitol Hill this week, Charles Cook, the Cook Political Report, summed it up best. If Mark Zuckerberg had appeared before Congress right away, it would have been bad, but now it's going to be horrific. "Roasted" was the term Rich Lowry used.
Mr. Zuckerberg's days of apologies and self-regulating half-measures are coming to a conclusion. It's just not going to work anymore that he's the individual who decides who gets your data and how much of it.
But here's the rub: When you have erudite old white men predominantly presiding over Congress who don't understand the back end of social media, regulation is going to be slow and ineffective. Conversely, this is why Mr. Wylie's insights are quite credible when he explains that it could be a lot more than 87 million people who have had their data shared with third parties.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, the National Review; Charlies Cook, the Cook Political Report
One more thing...
As a former teacher, I can safely say that teachers need to be paid more... much more. And states like Oklahoma that cut funding for their schools should be ashamed of themselves. Hard stop.
Sunday, April 01, 2018
4.1.18: Two Questions: A New Cold War? And Should Someone Profit Off Of Veterans?
Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute was sort of correct when she explained that the Trump Administration would not do something if the president wasn't OK with it. She also said that the Trump Administration has been tougher on Russia than the Obama Administration, which is also half right. The explanation comes in the face of the notion that the Administration/U.S. Foreign Policy apparatus writ large access and act in a way that is different from the president's.
Granted that U.S. and British politics respectively are chaotic and in a weakened state, it's still safe to say that the 'sacred relationship' between the two countries, dysfunctional as it is right now, is not broken and will not break in favor of Russia or the president's predilection to its leader Vladimir Putin. Even President Trump isn't going to jeopardize that even if it isn't his preference.
Was the Kremlin responsible for the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter? Given the use of the particular poison, Novichok, it's most probable as it was determined by the British government. Certainly a brazen act, it also put a significant amount of British citizens at risk. Standing with the UK, despite their exiting the EU, these countries stood with them:
EU Countries Non-EU Countries
Belgium Albania
Crotia Australia
Czech Republic Canada
Denmark Macedonia
Estonia Moldova
Finland Montenegro
France Norway
Germany Ukraine
Hungary United States
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemborg
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Spain
Sweden
So the question: Are we headed for a new cold war?
From the amount of countries expelling Russian diplomats and the Kremlin reciprocating in kind, it would seem so, but alas it's unlikely. These expulsions are a tit-for-tat and expected, but because of President Trump's consistent silence in relation to Russia keeps it from going any farther.
If the president starts in with harsh Russian rhetoric that would trigger it, but it's not going to happen because of the Russian probe hanging over the administration. Contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials have in fact been established, but it's up to the special counsel headed by Robert Mueller to put the story together and show that laws have been broken.
For the rest of these countries, some are standing in solidarity with Britain, but many one can suspect are joining the fray for various reasons, whether it's election meddling, annexing territory, naval activity in another country's waters, energy manipulation, or plain old deep distrust carried over from the Soviet era.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) described Russia as an 'unfriendly adversary,' which sums up the general attitude of the U.S. Senate and it also means that the Russia probe will continue. Speaking of that, Mr. Johnson also said that he thought that the special counsel should have been appointed after the Senate and House investigations. Good thing he isn't the attorney general because despite his reasoning that the special counsel disrupts congressional inquiries, the incompetence of the House and the hiccups in the Senate query have proven that it would have been the wrong move to wait.
Professor Emeritus at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz explained that a pardon can not be used as the pretext for a criminal charge because it's a Constitutional Act, even if there is corrupt intent because that last part is difficult to prove - even if it's for pardoning acts of collusion. As a counter-weight, Bob Bauer, former general counsel in the Obama Administration stated that the underlying reason for the pardons, the collusion, was at issue. Mr. Dershowitz explained the collusion is not unlawful as it is not mentioned. However, what he failed to mention, what Mr. Bauer began to state but was interrupted, is that having foreign nationals participating in a campaign, depending on degree, is in fact illegal. See FEC laws: https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
As for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, fmr. Secretary David Shulkin stated that he did not violate any ethics laws, but nonetheless the investigation provided the pretext for his firing. But one has to think that there is some truth to what he was saying about privatizing the VA and look no further than today's interview with Senator Johnson for evidence.
Though he said being the head of the VA is a thankless job, he described the VA as a single-payer system, run by the government that doesn't work. That's the sound of someone who thinks privatizing the VA would be a good thing. However, that's not what most veterans would say. My general feeling is that once you bring in the profit motive into helping veterans that soon the profit will become more important than the veterans. An even more insidious thing could happen if private companies who run VA hospitals need to keep making profits. Think of this analogy: private prisons need to keep cells full to keep making money. Ugh. Does someone actually need to profit monetarily from the suffering of brave men and women who served their country?
Lastly, the panel discussed the police shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento and noted a column written by David French in the Weekly Standard, in which he said that police are trained to expect the worst at all times. But what ever happened to training police not to shoot unless shot upon? If that were the training then Mr. Clark would have not been shot because he didn't have a gun. Shooting first and asking questions later is a military tactic, not a policing tactic. With the militarization of the police, which Elise Jordan mentioned, it's this mentality that overrides restraint.
Panel: George Will, The Washington Post; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Elise Jordan, NBC
A couple more things....
Art reflects cultural and the general mood of a society at the time it's being created. Not all the time, but many times. With that said, you have Roseanne Barr's television reboot. As Joshua Johnson explained the show is nuanced. But the bottom line is that it is a television program. If you like it, watch it. If you don't then don't. All good either way.
Granted that U.S. and British politics respectively are chaotic and in a weakened state, it's still safe to say that the 'sacred relationship' between the two countries, dysfunctional as it is right now, is not broken and will not break in favor of Russia or the president's predilection to its leader Vladimir Putin. Even President Trump isn't going to jeopardize that even if it isn't his preference.
Was the Kremlin responsible for the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter? Given the use of the particular poison, Novichok, it's most probable as it was determined by the British government. Certainly a brazen act, it also put a significant amount of British citizens at risk. Standing with the UK, despite their exiting the EU, these countries stood with them:
EU Countries Non-EU Countries
Belgium Albania
Crotia Australia
Czech Republic Canada
Denmark Macedonia
Estonia Moldova
Finland Montenegro
France Norway
Germany Ukraine
Hungary United States
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemborg
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Spain
Sweden
So the question: Are we headed for a new cold war?
From the amount of countries expelling Russian diplomats and the Kremlin reciprocating in kind, it would seem so, but alas it's unlikely. These expulsions are a tit-for-tat and expected, but because of President Trump's consistent silence in relation to Russia keeps it from going any farther.
If the president starts in with harsh Russian rhetoric that would trigger it, but it's not going to happen because of the Russian probe hanging over the administration. Contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials have in fact been established, but it's up to the special counsel headed by Robert Mueller to put the story together and show that laws have been broken.
For the rest of these countries, some are standing in solidarity with Britain, but many one can suspect are joining the fray for various reasons, whether it's election meddling, annexing territory, naval activity in another country's waters, energy manipulation, or plain old deep distrust carried over from the Soviet era.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) described Russia as an 'unfriendly adversary,' which sums up the general attitude of the U.S. Senate and it also means that the Russia probe will continue. Speaking of that, Mr. Johnson also said that he thought that the special counsel should have been appointed after the Senate and House investigations. Good thing he isn't the attorney general because despite his reasoning that the special counsel disrupts congressional inquiries, the incompetence of the House and the hiccups in the Senate query have proven that it would have been the wrong move to wait.
Professor Emeritus at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz explained that a pardon can not be used as the pretext for a criminal charge because it's a Constitutional Act, even if there is corrupt intent because that last part is difficult to prove - even if it's for pardoning acts of collusion. As a counter-weight, Bob Bauer, former general counsel in the Obama Administration stated that the underlying reason for the pardons, the collusion, was at issue. Mr. Dershowitz explained the collusion is not unlawful as it is not mentioned. However, what he failed to mention, what Mr. Bauer began to state but was interrupted, is that having foreign nationals participating in a campaign, depending on degree, is in fact illegal. See FEC laws: https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
As for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, fmr. Secretary David Shulkin stated that he did not violate any ethics laws, but nonetheless the investigation provided the pretext for his firing. But one has to think that there is some truth to what he was saying about privatizing the VA and look no further than today's interview with Senator Johnson for evidence.
Though he said being the head of the VA is a thankless job, he described the VA as a single-payer system, run by the government that doesn't work. That's the sound of someone who thinks privatizing the VA would be a good thing. However, that's not what most veterans would say. My general feeling is that once you bring in the profit motive into helping veterans that soon the profit will become more important than the veterans. An even more insidious thing could happen if private companies who run VA hospitals need to keep making profits. Think of this analogy: private prisons need to keep cells full to keep making money. Ugh. Does someone actually need to profit monetarily from the suffering of brave men and women who served their country?
Lastly, the panel discussed the police shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento and noted a column written by David French in the Weekly Standard, in which he said that police are trained to expect the worst at all times. But what ever happened to training police not to shoot unless shot upon? If that were the training then Mr. Clark would have not been shot because he didn't have a gun. Shooting first and asking questions later is a military tactic, not a policing tactic. With the militarization of the police, which Elise Jordan mentioned, it's this mentality that overrides restraint.
Panel: George Will, The Washington Post; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Elise Jordan, NBC
A couple more things....
Art reflects cultural and the general mood of a society at the time it's being created. Not all the time, but many times. With that said, you have Roseanne Barr's television reboot. As Joshua Johnson explained the show is nuanced. But the bottom line is that it is a television program. If you like it, watch it. If you don't then don't. All good either way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)