"Meet The Press" should have done better today. There simply was not enough time spent on the president's disastrous overseas trip to Osaka, Japan for the G20 Summit. All the interviews today with Senators Corey Booker (D-NJ), John Barrasso (R-WY) and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro should have all been conducted through the lens of the President of the United States not representing American values. From this latest trip overseas one could determine the Mr. Trump doesn't even know what American values are. Another disgraceful display on the part of the president.
At the top of the program, NBC's Richard Engel reported on the president's visit with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un for no other purpose than to say hello. The president received nothing in return for giving Kim Jung Un a huge PR boost. It's no comfort that the president is buddies with the N.K. dictator, a man who arbitrarily executes his citizenry and puts them in gulags. Mr. Engel explained that the president mislead the American public, again, that the United States was on the brink of war with North Korea before he was in office - not true - and that he alone saved us. In fact it was Mr. Trump who began with 'fire and fury' and is now 'in love' with Kim Jung Un.
Kasie Hunt once again asked the question that is on everyone's mind which is why does Mr. Trump cozy up to Vladimir Putin the way that he does? In a interview with the Financial Times, before the summit, Mr. Putin said 'the liberal idea has become obsolete.' Instead of defending liberal democracy, which is what The United States is, Mr. Trump said that journalists were a problem with their 'fake news,' a problem that Mr. Putin deals with by harassing, jailing and murdering journalists in his country. On this note, Mr. Trump told the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman that he was doing a spectacular job. That job includes the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and conducting a war in Yemen, with Mr. Trump's blessing, that has created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
But here's the good news, President Trump and President Xi of China are going to resume trade talks after the Mr. Trump conceded the allowance of Huawei to operate again in the United States. No relief for American farmers at this time, but China is going to get what it wants. Senator Barrasso said that Huawei was a 'Trojan Horse' and a threat to the U.S.'s national security. Mr. Barrasso said that he is concerned about this.
That's great, but as Mr. Todd stated, all of this is 'baked in' [to what we're used to in terms of the president's behavior] and shrugged off.
Mr. Trump is an embarrassment, plain and simple. And while he cozies up to authoritarian figures abroad, he gets to stoke his authoritarian inclinations here at home with his callousness and cavalier attitude to the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, which he created.
On this issue, Mr. Barrasso offered no assurance that our leaders are doing the right thing. He said that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in their own country and then their application would be processed. This is a ludicrous idea. If a Cuban asylum seeker applied in his or her home country, do you think that the person would be alive long enough to be able to come to the United States? That person would be killed. The aid package that the Senate passed puts no strict oversight on how the money is spent, something that the House rightfully demands. And when confronted by Mr. Todd with the fact that the appropriated monies will go to a private contractor, Homestead which runs prisons, Mr. Barrasso said that companies should not be profiting off of this tragedy. Mr. Barrasso said that he was not familiar with the company, which is just another way of saying that he doesn't know where the money is going. That's inexcusable as a U.S. Senator.
Julian Castro has the right idea in that the United States should have a 21st century type Marshall Plan to help countries in the Northern Triangle and throughout Central America better there conditions. That doesn't mean just throwing money at the problem. Resources on the ground are also warranted.
So while the president's behavior is 'baked in,' Mr. Trump is saying let them eat cake.
Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS; Kasie Hunt, NBC; Al Cardenas, Republican strategist; Cornell Belcher, Democratic strategist
A couple more things...
For further, more informed reading, go to Max Boot's column in The Washington Post.
And how long are we going to 'shrug off' Mr. Trump's behavior as a serial sexual predator? E. Jean Carroll's account of being attacked by Donald J. Trump is chilling...
As Kasie Hunt pointed out, the women of America, thankfully, are not shrugging it off.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Sunday, June 23, 2019
6.23.19: The Donald Trump Interview
The Donald Trump Interview...
In most if not all of President Trump's answers, particularly in this interview, there is an unhealthy dose of revisionist history. We wanted to make sure that we didn't take anything out of context so it was important to watch the full unedited interview, which you can access below.
Chuck Todd introduced a wide array of topics and though we won't cover them all, we'll discuss the most significant ones covered, starting with Iran.
What was edited out of program's excerpt, but contained in the unedited version, were Mr. Trump's some of Mr. Trump's objections to the Iran Nuclear Deal. His focus in dealing with Iran is the nuclear issue first and foremost. However, he also said that he thought the term of the nuclear agreement was too short, that we couldn't inspect all the sites and that it didn't eliminate ballistic missiles. Fair enough, but the Europeans, Russians and Chinese through inspections said that Iran had been in full compliance. What's short sighted on Mr. Trump's part and detractors of the deal was that in honoring the deal with the world's other nuclear powers, it would bring Iran to the table to negotiate other weapons and or an extension of the nuclear deal. However, by pulling out of the deal, the Trump Administration has thrown away all good faith in negotiating. In the interview, he said he would negotiate with Iran with no preconditions, but that is unlikely to happen at any point because Mr. Trump has shown that he can not be relied upon to keep his word. The majority of Americans feel he lies too much so why would the Iranians?
Mr. Trump pulled back the military strike at the least minute when he was told that there would be approximately 150 Iranian casualties, but wouldn't that be a question asked in initial conversations? People will say that this whole episode was just 'Trump being Trump,' but it's more serious than that given how close we were to going to war with Iran. True that the response wouldn't have been proportionate to shooting down a drone, but this entire crisis can be better managed if the president's rhetoric was so scatter shot. Peggy Noonan described it, and his presidency writ large, as harum scarum [read: reckless]. Then in this interview the president said that if the Iranian regime commits a hostile act they would face 'obliteration like you've never seen before.' Not helpful, to say the least.
Mr. Trump said that he was against the Iraq War but is on record as saying that he supported it. His opinion changes to what is convenient in the moment so in terms of policy prescriptions, one could easily conclude from his track record so far that the president has no agenda. When Mr. Todd asked him what his big idea was for reelection, the closest he came was healthcare, but only if the Republicans were to win the presidency, Senate and House. He said that he is for protecting preexisting conditions but his Justice Department has joined a lawsuit with 20 states to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that the president's sworn duty is to upload the laws of the United States, something his administration is clearly not doing by joining the lawsuit, which would take away those protections. The fact is that the administration has no plan for healthcare and will wait for Republicans to advance a bill once they take total control of all branches of government.
The economy, which Mr. Trump likes to tout, is, let's face it, something he inherited from the Obama Administration and with his tariff plays he is doing everything he can to subvert the progress. No president has meddled with the Federal Reserve to the extent that Mr. Trump has and it has created insecurity in the financial markets which operate best on predictability. Lanhee Chen explained that this is Mr. Trump's modus operandi when it comes to diplomacy - using the leverage of confusion to bring people at the table. However, just like we saw with North Korea, nothing good has come out of it. The North Korean dictator has now met with Putin and Xi. All Mr. Trump did was legitimize this ruthless dictator.
The unpredictability is exhausting.
Mr. Trump said that we couldn't get a deal with Mexico for 45 years and he got one in one day because of his threat of tariffs. However, this statement is ridiculous on its face. NAFTA whether you agree with it or not, was not 45 years ago.
And speaking of Mexico, the president said that he inherited the separation policy from President Obama, but the fact is that Mr. Trump squarely owns it by instituting zero-tolerance policy. Kristen Welker reminded us that President Trump said 'I alone, can fix it,' but he refuses the fix this humanitarian tragedy at the border. These kids separated from their parents will carry these scars for the rest of their lives. Mr. Trump's revisionist history will never be enough to change that.
Mr. Todd asked the president was his biggest regret has been so far in his presidency, to which he answered 'personnel.' He would have never appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General for the fact that he recused himself in the Russia investigation. However, for someone who has said that he would hire all the best people, the administration has an unprecedented amount of turn over. We were about to attack Iran and there is no permanent Secretary of Defense. We also have an acting DHS secretary there is no plan for fixing the humanitarian crisis at the border, which will go on for the duration of Mr. Trump's presidency, for certain. He said that he is not pleased with the performance of Jerome Powell the Fed Chairman saying he hasn't done a good job, but it was Mr. Trump who nominated him.
Lastly, Mr. Trump said that he didn't campaign to win the popular vote and visited 21 states so that he could win the electoral college, but after 4 years in office by the time of the 2020 election, will he be able to duplicate that strategy to win again? It's unlikely. If there is no tariff relief, farmers will not turn up for him again. Autoworkers in Michigan haven't seen great improvement in lives, and the administration hasn't done nearly enough on the Opiod crisis to the tragic frustration of Ohio voters.
A drama-filled presidency is wearing thin on the American electorate and no amount of revisionist history is going to solve that.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Peter Baker, The New York Times; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Lanhee Chen - Stanford University
In most if not all of President Trump's answers, particularly in this interview, there is an unhealthy dose of revisionist history. We wanted to make sure that we didn't take anything out of context so it was important to watch the full unedited interview, which you can access below.
Chuck Todd introduced a wide array of topics and though we won't cover them all, we'll discuss the most significant ones covered, starting with Iran.
What was edited out of program's excerpt, but contained in the unedited version, were Mr. Trump's some of Mr. Trump's objections to the Iran Nuclear Deal. His focus in dealing with Iran is the nuclear issue first and foremost. However, he also said that he thought the term of the nuclear agreement was too short, that we couldn't inspect all the sites and that it didn't eliminate ballistic missiles. Fair enough, but the Europeans, Russians and Chinese through inspections said that Iran had been in full compliance. What's short sighted on Mr. Trump's part and detractors of the deal was that in honoring the deal with the world's other nuclear powers, it would bring Iran to the table to negotiate other weapons and or an extension of the nuclear deal. However, by pulling out of the deal, the Trump Administration has thrown away all good faith in negotiating. In the interview, he said he would negotiate with Iran with no preconditions, but that is unlikely to happen at any point because Mr. Trump has shown that he can not be relied upon to keep his word. The majority of Americans feel he lies too much so why would the Iranians?
Mr. Trump pulled back the military strike at the least minute when he was told that there would be approximately 150 Iranian casualties, but wouldn't that be a question asked in initial conversations? People will say that this whole episode was just 'Trump being Trump,' but it's more serious than that given how close we were to going to war with Iran. True that the response wouldn't have been proportionate to shooting down a drone, but this entire crisis can be better managed if the president's rhetoric was so scatter shot. Peggy Noonan described it, and his presidency writ large, as harum scarum [read: reckless]. Then in this interview the president said that if the Iranian regime commits a hostile act they would face 'obliteration like you've never seen before.' Not helpful, to say the least.
 | |||||
| Click Here for Full Unedited Interview |
The economy, which Mr. Trump likes to tout, is, let's face it, something he inherited from the Obama Administration and with his tariff plays he is doing everything he can to subvert the progress. No president has meddled with the Federal Reserve to the extent that Mr. Trump has and it has created insecurity in the financial markets which operate best on predictability. Lanhee Chen explained that this is Mr. Trump's modus operandi when it comes to diplomacy - using the leverage of confusion to bring people at the table. However, just like we saw with North Korea, nothing good has come out of it. The North Korean dictator has now met with Putin and Xi. All Mr. Trump did was legitimize this ruthless dictator.
The unpredictability is exhausting.
Mr. Trump said that we couldn't get a deal with Mexico for 45 years and he got one in one day because of his threat of tariffs. However, this statement is ridiculous on its face. NAFTA whether you agree with it or not, was not 45 years ago.
And speaking of Mexico, the president said that he inherited the separation policy from President Obama, but the fact is that Mr. Trump squarely owns it by instituting zero-tolerance policy. Kristen Welker reminded us that President Trump said 'I alone, can fix it,' but he refuses the fix this humanitarian tragedy at the border. These kids separated from their parents will carry these scars for the rest of their lives. Mr. Trump's revisionist history will never be enough to change that.
Mr. Todd asked the president was his biggest regret has been so far in his presidency, to which he answered 'personnel.' He would have never appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General for the fact that he recused himself in the Russia investigation. However, for someone who has said that he would hire all the best people, the administration has an unprecedented amount of turn over. We were about to attack Iran and there is no permanent Secretary of Defense. We also have an acting DHS secretary there is no plan for fixing the humanitarian crisis at the border, which will go on for the duration of Mr. Trump's presidency, for certain. He said that he is not pleased with the performance of Jerome Powell the Fed Chairman saying he hasn't done a good job, but it was Mr. Trump who nominated him.
Lastly, Mr. Trump said that he didn't campaign to win the popular vote and visited 21 states so that he could win the electoral college, but after 4 years in office by the time of the 2020 election, will he be able to duplicate that strategy to win again? It's unlikely. If there is no tariff relief, farmers will not turn up for him again. Autoworkers in Michigan haven't seen great improvement in lives, and the administration hasn't done nearly enough on the Opiod crisis to the tragic frustration of Ohio voters.
A drama-filled presidency is wearing thin on the American electorate and no amount of revisionist history is going to solve that.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Peter Baker, The New York Times; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Lanhee Chen - Stanford University
Sunday, June 16, 2019
6.16.19: Perceived Compromise and Individual Cabinet Agendas
We start in the Strait of Hormuz, a Middle East waterway that the world economy depends on for stability. Two oil tankers were attacked and Iran is believed to be responsible. The consensus throughout the program was that it is consistent with Iranian behavior, to borrow a phrase from Pete Buttigieg. There was also positive consensus on using the U.S. military to escort tankers through the strait to protect American interests and allies in the region.
However, as Richard Engel explained, there were many moments that had lead to where we are now - pulling out of the JCPA [the Iran deal], the Administration's continued support of the Saudi war in Yemen, and escalating sanctions. The latter of which, Mr. Engel explained that the U.S. has ratcheted up the sanctions to an unbearable degree, the Iranian hardliners would ascend and actions like this were likely to take place, something that National Security Advisor John Bolton would certainly know, again from Mr. Engel.
There's no cohesive plan coming from the Administration. The president's agenda differs from Mr. Bolton and for that matter Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's as well. The competing forces need to coalesce or mistakes will be made and we will find ourselves in a military conflict. In terms of using the U.S. military as tanker escorts, the decision comes down to 'what choice do you have?' versus 'are we just inviting a military conflict?' The circumstances would have been much better if the U.S. could conduct such an operation with the help and support of its allies, but the Administration has isolated itself, never seeing the bigger picture of foreign affairs and we lay that at the feet of the president.
The New York Times just reported that military advisors didn't fully brief the president about planting malware into the Russia power grid for fear of how the president would react, which is no less than incredible. It says is that even though nothing has been evidenced that the president is compromised in some way, our military has the perception that he is. One could make the distinction between what the president says and what his administration does, but the president needs to lead his administration to lead the country and these mixed messages clearly indicate a lack of steady-handed leadership. However, as George Will elegantly explained, the president is a "complete amateur in American public life" and we should be appalled but not surprised. Little consolation...
Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that he was glad the president was being aggressive with Russia with regard to meddling, but again its not the president but his administration. Mr. Scalise readily accepts that Russia did meddle with the 2016 U.S. election, but seemed just as worried about corporate security as much as election cybersecurity. Being part of the Legislature Mr. Scalise should mainly focus on election security; corporations are continually taking steps. Mr. Scalise said their were massive problems with the Democratic Party's H.R. 1 bill that addressed election security and voter rights. The Louisiana Minority Whip is entitled to his spin, like explicitly pointing out that Mr. Obama was president at the time of the meddling. This is true but when Mr. Obama got the leaders of the House and Senate together to put out a unified public statement about it, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked the effort and wasn't concerned. However, by just reading the summary, you'll read that the main issue for Republicans is that it established an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission in the states. In other words, no more gerrymandering to favor one party over the other.
On that alone, Senator McConnell would never bring it to the floor of Senate so the cybersecurity parts of the bill get scrapped out of hand. Why not have a clean bill on cybersecurity? Even presented with that, Mr. McConnell wouldn't bring it up for a vote. Even given the president's comments this week to George Stephanopoulos that he would take information from a foreign power and use it to win reelection, Mr. McConnell has no interest in an updated bill, one more explicit, about taking money from a foreign government. Why would that be?
Is it because Mitch McConnell's wife Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao's family owns a shipping company based in New York but with ships flagged from countries all over the world and business in China? How does the Chinese government not know every business aspect of this company's dealings in country? They know it all, and this illustrates several interest conflicts across the spectrum.
There is no plan coming from this Administration for if it at least had that, the president wouldn't be floundering as much as he is. But because of his perceived compromising position and having every cabinet member with his or her own agenda, the rocky road with only continue.
Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; George Will, syndicated columnist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times
One more thing...
Totally agree with Helene Cooper that it's too early to be dissecting polls, or getting to hung up on every provocative statement aimed at a primary opponent, we just let you know that it will be changing soon as the first debate line-ups have been set:
However, as Richard Engel explained, there were many moments that had lead to where we are now - pulling out of the JCPA [the Iran deal], the Administration's continued support of the Saudi war in Yemen, and escalating sanctions. The latter of which, Mr. Engel explained that the U.S. has ratcheted up the sanctions to an unbearable degree, the Iranian hardliners would ascend and actions like this were likely to take place, something that National Security Advisor John Bolton would certainly know, again from Mr. Engel.
There's no cohesive plan coming from the Administration. The president's agenda differs from Mr. Bolton and for that matter Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's as well. The competing forces need to coalesce or mistakes will be made and we will find ourselves in a military conflict. In terms of using the U.S. military as tanker escorts, the decision comes down to 'what choice do you have?' versus 'are we just inviting a military conflict?' The circumstances would have been much better if the U.S. could conduct such an operation with the help and support of its allies, but the Administration has isolated itself, never seeing the bigger picture of foreign affairs and we lay that at the feet of the president.
 |
| Click to Watch Video |
Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that he was glad the president was being aggressive with Russia with regard to meddling, but again its not the president but his administration. Mr. Scalise readily accepts that Russia did meddle with the 2016 U.S. election, but seemed just as worried about corporate security as much as election cybersecurity. Being part of the Legislature Mr. Scalise should mainly focus on election security; corporations are continually taking steps. Mr. Scalise said their were massive problems with the Democratic Party's H.R. 1 bill that addressed election security and voter rights. The Louisiana Minority Whip is entitled to his spin, like explicitly pointing out that Mr. Obama was president at the time of the meddling. This is true but when Mr. Obama got the leaders of the House and Senate together to put out a unified public statement about it, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked the effort and wasn't concerned. However, by just reading the summary, you'll read that the main issue for Republicans is that it established an independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission in the states. In other words, no more gerrymandering to favor one party over the other.
On that alone, Senator McConnell would never bring it to the floor of Senate so the cybersecurity parts of the bill get scrapped out of hand. Why not have a clean bill on cybersecurity? Even presented with that, Mr. McConnell wouldn't bring it up for a vote. Even given the president's comments this week to George Stephanopoulos that he would take information from a foreign power and use it to win reelection, Mr. McConnell has no interest in an updated bill, one more explicit, about taking money from a foreign government. Why would that be?
Is it because Mitch McConnell's wife Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao's family owns a shipping company based in New York but with ships flagged from countries all over the world and business in China? How does the Chinese government not know every business aspect of this company's dealings in country? They know it all, and this illustrates several interest conflicts across the spectrum.
There is no plan coming from this Administration for if it at least had that, the president wouldn't be floundering as much as he is. But because of his perceived compromising position and having every cabinet member with his or her own agenda, the rocky road with only continue.
Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; George Will, syndicated columnist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times
One more thing...
Totally agree with Helene Cooper that it's too early to be dissecting polls, or getting to hung up on every provocative statement aimed at a primary opponent, we just let you know that it will be changing soon as the first debate line-ups have been set:
Sunday, June 09, 2019
6.9.19: Mr. Trump's European Trip
"Meet The Press" has been preempted today in lieu of French Open coverage.
So...
Just a quick comment about the president's European trip, specifically to the UK, France and Ireland.
When you start insulting the host city's mayor before you even get off Air Force One, and you know it's going to be a rough trip, for all of us. With a window seat on that bandwagon, Mr. Trump brought his entire family to Buckingham Palace, which makes it fair to ask who exactly paid for all that? The president waded right into the UK internal politics, which may not seem like a big deal to people in the U.S., however if all the leaders of the Five Eyes at a television press conference and collectively said that they were in favor of a particular U.S. candidate that wasn't Trump, how do you think Americans should feel?
The president said that he only saw but a few protesting him in London and many many people cheering for him, despite the thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square and having those images blasted all over the media. Images like this one...
Called the Duchess of Sussex 'nasty,' more faux pas's with the Queen of England, topped off with an interview with Piers Morgan, during which among other things said that "I think I make up for it Never mind the fact that it's Congress that appropriates the amount.
right now," seemingly justifying his deferrals from Vietnam on medical reasons because now that he's president he's giving a lot of money to the military.
Here's the full context, if you must.
And we would be remiss if we didn't say something the fact that Mr. Trump had a 90-minute meeting with Prince Charles, in which he tried to explain the causes and effects of climate change. Mr. Trump wasn't having any of it. In the above chip, Mr. Trump explained that it used to be called 'global warming' and then 'climate change,' but now it's 'extreme weather,' and that can go both ways. Where even to start with that? This column couldn't tell you but it would end something like this: Yes, global warming [from human activity, e.g. carbon emissions] is causing the world's climate to change manifesting itself in extreme weather events.
In France, we'll give it to the president that he said the right things in his speech to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of D Day, the largest seaborne invasion in history, in Normandy, France. The president stuck to the script and the transcript, not deviating from the prepared speech, as presidents should. Mr. Trump clearly understood the magnitude and historical significance of the event. Then an interview with Laura Ingraham and the president airs, in which Mr. Trump is bad mouthing the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives on foreign soil in front of the graves of the 9,388 tombs of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Normandy invasion.
Then after a long day, the president flew to his golf course in Ireland to spend the night, which again you have to think about for a second. American tax payers float the bill for the president and his adult family to stay at the president's golf course that he still owns, essentially the president enriching himself off taxpayer money. Nothing revelatory there, but it speaks to the point why the Irish Prime Minister did not want to meet at Mr. Trump's Doonbeg resort because he wasn't going to contribute to that. Insisting that the Irish Prime Minister go to your resort in his own country and enriching even more in the process is a good look to say the least, for the Irish Prime Minister. So they met at the airport instead.
We're not really sure... How do you think it went?
So...
Just a quick comment about the president's European trip, specifically to the UK, France and Ireland.
When you start insulting the host city's mayor before you even get off Air Force One, and you know it's going to be a rough trip, for all of us. With a window seat on that bandwagon, Mr. Trump brought his entire family to Buckingham Palace, which makes it fair to ask who exactly paid for all that? The president waded right into the UK internal politics, which may not seem like a big deal to people in the U.S., however if all the leaders of the Five Eyes at a television press conference and collectively said that they were in favor of a particular U.S. candidate that wasn't Trump, how do you think Americans should feel?
The president said that he only saw but a few protesting him in London and many many people cheering for him, despite the thousands gathered in Trafalgar Square and having those images blasted all over the media. Images like this one...
right now," seemingly justifying his deferrals from Vietnam on medical reasons because now that he's president he's giving a lot of money to the military.
Here's the full context, if you must.
And we would be remiss if we didn't say something the fact that Mr. Trump had a 90-minute meeting with Prince Charles, in which he tried to explain the causes and effects of climate change. Mr. Trump wasn't having any of it. In the above chip, Mr. Trump explained that it used to be called 'global warming' and then 'climate change,' but now it's 'extreme weather,' and that can go both ways. Where even to start with that? This column couldn't tell you but it would end something like this: Yes, global warming [from human activity, e.g. carbon emissions] is causing the world's climate to change manifesting itself in extreme weather events.
In France, we'll give it to the president that he said the right things in his speech to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of D Day, the largest seaborne invasion in history, in Normandy, France. The president stuck to the script and the transcript, not deviating from the prepared speech, as presidents should. Mr. Trump clearly understood the magnitude and historical significance of the event. Then an interview with Laura Ingraham and the president airs, in which Mr. Trump is bad mouthing the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives on foreign soil in front of the graves of the 9,388 tombs of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Normandy invasion.
Then after a long day, the president flew to his golf course in Ireland to spend the night, which again you have to think about for a second. American tax payers float the bill for the president and his adult family to stay at the president's golf course that he still owns, essentially the president enriching himself off taxpayer money. Nothing revelatory there, but it speaks to the point why the Irish Prime Minister did not want to meet at Mr. Trump's Doonbeg resort because he wasn't going to contribute to that. Insisting that the Irish Prime Minister go to your resort in his own country and enriching even more in the process is a good look to say the least, for the Irish Prime Minister. So they met at the airport instead.
We're not really sure... How do you think it went?
Sunday, June 02, 2019
6.2.19: A Country Tied Up in Knots
This column once again begins with a comment on another tragic shooting this time in Virginia Beach, VA where 12 municipal employees were gunned down and killed by a man carrying two 45 caliber handguns equipped with extended magazines and silencers. The president has offered his condolences and federal resources if needed and for the rest of the country, it's simply a matter of just being 'another.'
Extended magazines then bump stocks now silencers. The gun lobby has seen fit to make sure all of these firearm accessories are available under the guise of the Second Amendment. After Las Vegas, bump stocks have been banned in most states, however there are pending lawsuits against such bans. Where will it stop? One thing is for certain, it won't stop under this Administration, exhibit A: Mick Mulvaney.
In the interview today, Mr. Mulvaney said that we shouldn't be talking politics as the mourning period for the people killed hasn't even run its course. He also concluded the topic by saying that 'laws aren't going to fix everything.' In terms of politics, Chuck Todd countered that he wasn't talking politics but instead policy. To which Mr. Mulvaney, still the acting White House Chief of Staff, took credit for bump stock legislation that occurred on the state level. And though it may be a literal truth that laws do not fix everything, the president and Senate Republicans will certainly not take up any legislation and impedes Americans' abilities to slaughter one another with firearms.
The tragedy goes on...
Mr. Mulvaney has proven himself to be a capable enabler of chaos in continually attempting to rationalize Mr. Trump's misguided positions on just about everything. The latest is the Administration's coming tariffs of five percent on all products shipped from Mexico starting on June 10th, and subsequently going up five percent every month unless the Mexican government takes measures to stop immigrants coming to the U.S. border from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Mr. Mulvaney said that we must take these extraordinary measures because we are in extraordinary circumstances. These new tariffs will put more burdens on American consumers and hurt the U.S. economy and the Mexican economy. Republican lawmakers are beginning to speak up about the potential danger to the only thing propping up Mr. Trump's presidency, which is the good economy. We've already seen what the trade war with China is doing to American farmers, who the president is buying off with bailouts for the second year in a row, $28 billions so far. However, that bailout money, for the most part, is going to big agribusiness and has yet to make its way to local farmers. There are ways to be tough on China without causing the economic disruptions that are most felt by American consumers. The president has been abusing his power with regard to employing tariffs arbitrarily without any Congressional consent. However, the Senate has proven itself toothless in standing up to anything that Mr. Trump does.
With regard to the U.S. Mexican border, there is no coherent policy coming from the Trump Administration and if there is one thing Beto O'Rourke knows about, it's immigration policy having represented the district encompassing El Paso, Texas. Say what you will about Mr. O'Rourke's candidacy, he has it right that we have to go to the root cause of the problem and help those central triangle countries to stem the violence and hardship there, to have overwhelming positive influence in our hemisphere as he explained into today's interview.
As for Mr. O'Rourke's sputtering campaign, let's take a step back from that as it's early and we haven't even had a single debate yet, the first of which is coming up. With so many candidates, the debates will be crucial in determining where as the candidates stand in the eyes of Democratic voters. If Mr. O'Rourke has a strong showing then you'll be hearing about the 'big' turnaround he's had.
Lastly, this column came to the very same instant observation that Kristen Welker did when Mr. Mulvaney was asked about whether or not the president accepts that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. He hesitated and had had a hard time answering, and dismissed Russian interference saying that it didn't make any difference in the outcome, which let's be honest is a matter of debate.
Jon Meachum was correct in assessing that Robert Mueller's statement this week didn't help to clarify anything and that he needed to take a 'mulligan.' Let's face it, Americans writ large didn't read the report and Mr. Trump with the indispensable assistance of his Attorney General William Barr won the narrative. All Mr. Mueller accomplished was to tie the Democrats up in knots about whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or not, as Carol Lee assessed.
And that pretty much sizes up our collective existence in the Trump era, tied up in knots and right now there's no way to get free.
Panel: Carol Lee, NBC; Kristen Welker, NBC; Jon Meachum, author and presidential historian; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network
Extended magazines then bump stocks now silencers. The gun lobby has seen fit to make sure all of these firearm accessories are available under the guise of the Second Amendment. After Las Vegas, bump stocks have been banned in most states, however there are pending lawsuits against such bans. Where will it stop? One thing is for certain, it won't stop under this Administration, exhibit A: Mick Mulvaney.
In the interview today, Mr. Mulvaney said that we shouldn't be talking politics as the mourning period for the people killed hasn't even run its course. He also concluded the topic by saying that 'laws aren't going to fix everything.' In terms of politics, Chuck Todd countered that he wasn't talking politics but instead policy. To which Mr. Mulvaney, still the acting White House Chief of Staff, took credit for bump stock legislation that occurred on the state level. And though it may be a literal truth that laws do not fix everything, the president and Senate Republicans will certainly not take up any legislation and impedes Americans' abilities to slaughter one another with firearms.
The tragedy goes on...
Mr. Mulvaney has proven himself to be a capable enabler of chaos in continually attempting to rationalize Mr. Trump's misguided positions on just about everything. The latest is the Administration's coming tariffs of five percent on all products shipped from Mexico starting on June 10th, and subsequently going up five percent every month unless the Mexican government takes measures to stop immigrants coming to the U.S. border from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Mr. Mulvaney said that we must take these extraordinary measures because we are in extraordinary circumstances. These new tariffs will put more burdens on American consumers and hurt the U.S. economy and the Mexican economy. Republican lawmakers are beginning to speak up about the potential danger to the only thing propping up Mr. Trump's presidency, which is the good economy. We've already seen what the trade war with China is doing to American farmers, who the president is buying off with bailouts for the second year in a row, $28 billions so far. However, that bailout money, for the most part, is going to big agribusiness and has yet to make its way to local farmers. There are ways to be tough on China without causing the economic disruptions that are most felt by American consumers. The president has been abusing his power with regard to employing tariffs arbitrarily without any Congressional consent. However, the Senate has proven itself toothless in standing up to anything that Mr. Trump does.
With regard to the U.S. Mexican border, there is no coherent policy coming from the Trump Administration and if there is one thing Beto O'Rourke knows about, it's immigration policy having represented the district encompassing El Paso, Texas. Say what you will about Mr. O'Rourke's candidacy, he has it right that we have to go to the root cause of the problem and help those central triangle countries to stem the violence and hardship there, to have overwhelming positive influence in our hemisphere as he explained into today's interview.
As for Mr. O'Rourke's sputtering campaign, let's take a step back from that as it's early and we haven't even had a single debate yet, the first of which is coming up. With so many candidates, the debates will be crucial in determining where as the candidates stand in the eyes of Democratic voters. If Mr. O'Rourke has a strong showing then you'll be hearing about the 'big' turnaround he's had.
Lastly, this column came to the very same instant observation that Kristen Welker did when Mr. Mulvaney was asked about whether or not the president accepts that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. He hesitated and had had a hard time answering, and dismissed Russian interference saying that it didn't make any difference in the outcome, which let's be honest is a matter of debate.
Jon Meachum was correct in assessing that Robert Mueller's statement this week didn't help to clarify anything and that he needed to take a 'mulligan.' Let's face it, Americans writ large didn't read the report and Mr. Trump with the indispensable assistance of his Attorney General William Barr won the narrative. All Mr. Mueller accomplished was to tie the Democrats up in knots about whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or not, as Carol Lee assessed.
And that pretty much sizes up our collective existence in the Trump era, tied up in knots and right now there's no way to get free.
Panel: Carol Lee, NBC; Kristen Welker, NBC; Jon Meachum, author and presidential historian; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network
6.2.19: Chaos Enabler, The Sarah Sanders Interview
We missed last week for taking some much needed time off during the Memorial Day weekend, but we couldn't let Administration Press Secretary Sarah Sanders' first appearance on "Meet The Press" go by without comment.
Ms. Sanders, you have to hand it to her, is the perfect mouthpiece for President Trump. She is an expert at deflecting questions in other directions, being vague in lieu of substance and of course blame.
The mere fact that Ms. Sanders refers to Kim Jung Un as 'Chairman Kim' bestows a sense of respect that the brutal North Korean dictator hardly deserves, and that is understating it. She said that she agrees with the president agreeing with Kim Jung Un's assessment of former Vice-President Joe Biden. Think about that... Donald Trump once again siding with dictators over American citizens.
She also stated that Mr. Trump was able to get American hostages back from North Korea. Hostages? One hostage, Mr. Otto Warmbier, who died when he arrived back in the United States essentially murdered by Kim Jung Un. Explain this to Mr. Warmbier's parents.
Yet, it's all the Obama Administration's fault for the situation with North Korea and their advancement of their nuclear capabilities. Ms. Sanders said that the president is hopeful that Kim Jung Un will keep his promise to denuclearize the peninsula because of their good personal relationship. That's called 'getting played,' and everyone can see it. By conducting a missile test the other week, North Korea clearly violated a United Nations Security Council resolution, which even the president's National Security Advisor John Bolton clarified. Yet, the president is not concerned.
Lastly, Ms. Sanders continues enabling the lies with regard to corruption in the FBI and the Department of Justice and that individuals need to be held to account. Chuck Todd asked her specifically if James Comey would be arrested, to which she deferred. However, if there are arrests of such individuals as Mr. Comey or Andrew McCabe then democracy has truly lost.
It's been over two months since the last White House press briefing... And we pay her salary?
Ms. Sanders, you have to hand it to her, is the perfect mouthpiece for President Trump. She is an expert at deflecting questions in other directions, being vague in lieu of substance and of course blame.
The mere fact that Ms. Sanders refers to Kim Jung Un as 'Chairman Kim' bestows a sense of respect that the brutal North Korean dictator hardly deserves, and that is understating it. She said that she agrees with the president agreeing with Kim Jung Un's assessment of former Vice-President Joe Biden. Think about that... Donald Trump once again siding with dictators over American citizens.
She also stated that Mr. Trump was able to get American hostages back from North Korea. Hostages? One hostage, Mr. Otto Warmbier, who died when he arrived back in the United States essentially murdered by Kim Jung Un. Explain this to Mr. Warmbier's parents.
Yet, it's all the Obama Administration's fault for the situation with North Korea and their advancement of their nuclear capabilities. Ms. Sanders said that the president is hopeful that Kim Jung Un will keep his promise to denuclearize the peninsula because of their good personal relationship. That's called 'getting played,' and everyone can see it. By conducting a missile test the other week, North Korea clearly violated a United Nations Security Council resolution, which even the president's National Security Advisor John Bolton clarified. Yet, the president is not concerned.
Lastly, Ms. Sanders continues enabling the lies with regard to corruption in the FBI and the Department of Justice and that individuals need to be held to account. Chuck Todd asked her specifically if James Comey would be arrested, to which she deferred. However, if there are arrests of such individuals as Mr. Comey or Andrew McCabe then democracy has truly lost.
It's been over two months since the last White House press briefing... And we pay her salary?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)